New OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL - OAG · 2016. 7. 22. · the republic of uganda. value for money...

1VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

T H E R E P U B L I C O F U G A N D A

M A R C H , 2 0 1 3

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORTON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT

ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA)

A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

www.oag.go.ug | E-mail: [email protected]


VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT

ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT

ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA)

A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

MARCH, 2013



12th June, 2013

The Rt. Hon. Speaker of ParliamentParliament of Uganda

In accordance with Article 163 (3) of the Constitution, I have undertaken a value for money audit on environmental management activities of the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and hereby submit this report.

My office intends to carry out a follow – up at an appropriate time regarding actions taken in relation to the recommendations in this report.

I would like to thank my staff: The Director, Mr Stephen Kateregga and Assistant Director Liz Nambuya; and team Bob Monday – Senior Principal Auditor, Patrick Ndahura - Principal Auditor, Noel Mbabazi - Auditor, Babra M Okurut - Auditor and Raphael Olowo - Auditor who undertook this audit. I would also like to thank the staff of National Environment Management Authority for the assistance offered to my staff during the period of the audit.

John F. S. Muwanga

AUDITOR GENERALAUDITOR GENERAL’S MESSAGE

TAB

LE O

FCO

NTE

NTS

TAB

LE O

F CO

NTE

NTS

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... iii

List of pictures .................................................................................................................................. iii

List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... iii

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................2

1.2 Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Description of the audit area ............................................................................................... 2

1.4 Organisation structure .......................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Funding ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.6 Audit objectives .................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO AUDIT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Sampling .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER THREE SYSTEM AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 8

3.1 Roles and responsibilties of key players .......................................................................... 8

3.2 Process description ............................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Environmental compliance and enforcement ................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Coordination with lead agencies ....................................................................................... 11

3.2.3 Capacity building ................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.4 Environmental education and awareness ......................................................................... 12

CHAPTER FOURFINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 14

4.1 Compliance and enforcement ............................................................................................14

4.1.1 Review and approval time for project briefs (pbs) and environmental Impact statements

(eiss)....................................................................................................................................................14

4.1.2 EIA review and approval ...................................................................................................... 16

4.1.3 Collection of EIA fees .......................................................................................................... 19

4.1.4 Submission of environmental audit EA reports ................................................................. 21

4.1.5 Identification, restoration demarcation and protection of fragile ecosystems ................. 23

4.1.6 Management of the National Environment Fund .............................................................. 28

4.1.7 Environmental Inspections ................................................................................................. 31

4.2 Promotion of environmental education, awareness and enhancement of access to

environmental information ............................................................................................................. 38

4.2.1 Training and sensitization ................................................................................................... 38

4.2.2 Establishment of a Compliance Management Information System ................................. 41

4.3 Coordination with Lead Agencies ....................................................................................... 43

4.3.1 Coordination with Police, DPP and the Judiciary in enforcing compliance and prosecuting

of offenders........................................................................................................................................ 43

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL


4.3.2 Preparation of the National Land use Plan ....................................................................... 43

4.3.3 Reports from lead agencies ............................................................................................... 44

4.3.4 Response to public concerns ............................................................................................. 45

4.4 Capacity building ................................................................................................................ 46

4.4.1 Staff training and support ................................................................................................... 46

4.4.2 Support to districts to produce DSOERS ............................................................................ 48

4.4.3 Training and gazetting of Environmental Inspectors ......................................................... 49

4.4.4 Training of Trainers ............................................................................................................. 50

Glossary of terms ............................................................................................................................. 52

Appendix i: NEMA organogram ........................................................................................................ 53

Appendix ii: Documents reviewed..................................................................................................... 54

Appendix iii: Interviews conducted ................................................................................................... 55

Appendix iv: Complainants data collection form ............................................................................. 56

Appendix v: Field sites visited .......................................................................................................... 56

Appendix vi: List of major lead agencies ......................................................................................... 57

Appendix vii: Schedule three of the EIA regulations, 1998 .............................................................. 57

Appendix viii: Uncollected EIA fees on sampled EIAs ..................................................................... 58

Appendix ix: Direct purchase of tree seedlings ............................................................................... 61

Appendix x: Outstanding environmental impact assessment fees as at 30th november, 2012...... 62

Annex: Management Response to 4.4.4 .......................................................................................... 65

Table 1: showing sources of NEMA’s funding .................................................................................... 4

Table 2: showing projects assessed without project costs ............................................................. 20

Table 3: showing projects without proof of assessment ................................................................. 20

Table 4: showing the number of months developers delayed to submit EA reports ..................... 22

Table 5: showing planned and actual activities for the fragile ecosystems ................................... 24

Table 6: summary of expenditure on fragile ecosystems across the country ............................... 25

Table 7: status of wetlands demarcation by wetlands division ....................................................... 25

Table 8: showing the discrepancies between the number of seedlings purchased and distributed ..

............................................................................................................................................................ 30

Table 9: comparison of seedlings to be supplied as per MOU with actual supplied ..................... 30

Table 10: Expenditure on field inspections by NEMA ...................................................................... 32

Table 11: Training and sensitization of Parliamentarians ............................................................... 38

Table 12: Training and sensitization of Police, Judiciary and Prosecutors .................................... 39

Table 13: Training for environmental journalists on environmental reporting/publicity ............... 40

Table 14: Training of NEMA staff ...................................................................................................... 46

Table 15: Tracking targets for NEMA staff training as per strategic plan ...................................... 47

Table 16: Expenditure on support to districts to produce DSOERS ................................................ 48

Table 17: Training of gazetted Environmental Inspectors ............................................................... 49

Table 18: Training of Trainers .......................................................................................................... 50

ii

LIST OF TABLES



Figure 1: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Review and Approval Process ................ 11

Figure 2: Review and Approval of PBs and EISs ...............................................................................15

Figure 3: Showing level of compliance with the EIA approval process ........................................... 17

Figure 4: Showing the Level of compliance to submission of EAs by licensed facilities ............... 22

Figure 5: Waste disposal methods at health facilities .................................................................... 33

Figure 6: Percentage of compliant vs. non-compliant industries .................................................. 35

Figure 7: Showing envisioned information-sharing linkages in the COMIS ................................... 42

Figure 8: Showing the Levels of satisfaction of complainants ....................................................... 45

Picture 1: Showing unregulated sand mining in Kinawataka Wetland at Butabika ....................... 26

Picture 2: Showing construction by National Housing and Construction Company in the Naalya-

Kyaliwajjala wetland ......................................................................................................................... 26

Picture 3: Showing Silting of River Bukora at Mutukula Bridge ..................................................... 27

Picture 4: Showing a restored green belt in Bushenyi District ....................................................... 27

Picture 5-6: Showing waste management in Mbale and Gulu hospitals......................... . .............. 33

Pictures 11-12: Overflow of factory waste at Sky Fat Leather Tannery .......................................... 35

Pictures 7-8: Waste management practices at Nile Breweries and LIU ........................................ 36

Pictures 9-10: Release of untreated effluent by Mbale Soap Works (MSW) .................................. 36

Picture 11-12: Overflow of factory waste at sky Far Leather Tannery ............................................ 37

CID Criminal Investigations DepartmentDECs District Environment CommitteesDEO District Environment OfficerDPP Directorate of Public ProsecutionEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEPF Environmental Police ForceETP Effluent Treatment Plant

LEC Local Environment CommitteesMoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentMoLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban DevelopmentMWE Ministry of Water and EnvironmentNEA The National Environmental Act, Cap 153NEMA National Environment Management AuthorityNFA National Forestry AuthorityPCE Policy Committee on EnvironmentShs. Uganda ShillingsTC/PL Technical Committee on Pollution LicensingUIA Uganda Investment AuthorityUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUPF Uganda Police Force

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PICTURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS



BACKGROUNDThe Auditor General (AG) is mandated under Article 163 of the Constitution of the Republic of

Uganda and Sections 13 and 19 of the National Audit Act, to audit and report on Public accounts

of Uganda and all public offices, which receive and utilize public funds.

The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) was established in 1995 as the

principal agency in Uganda responsible for carrying out: coordination, monitoring, regulation and

supervision of environmental management activities in the country.

The prevailing state of Uganda’s environment is a cause for concern. The country’s progress

towards the attainment of environmental sustainability has been ranked as slow1 and still “a

dream2”. Several reports also continue to indicate cases of environmental degradation through:

overgrazing (NSOER, 2010); cultivation, construction and settlement in wetlands and forest

reserves (NEMA, 2011; IRIN, 2009); poor handling and management of domestic and hazardous

waste (e.g. medical waste, used oil and e-waste); and discharge of untreated effluent into fragile

ecosystems (NSOER, 2010).

Despite the existence of a comprehensive legal framework governing environmental management

and the existence of a dedicated regulatory Authority in Uganda, there has been widespread

degradation of the environment. The Government of Uganda and Development Partners have

invested substantial amount of money in environmental protection initiatives. For example,

between FY 2008/09 and FY 2011/12 a total of Shs. 48.47 billion was disbursed to NEMA to cater

for environmental activities.

It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) carried out a Value for

Money audit whose main audit objective was to assess whether NEMA was taking adequate steps

to ensure sound environmental management practices for sustainable development.

The audit, which covered 4 financial years (2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11and 2011/12), was carried out

at NEMA Headquarters, selected districts and facilities across the country.

KEY AUDIT FINDINGS:Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Laws and Regulations

It was noted that the review and approval of Project Briefs (PBs) and Environmental Impact

Statements (EIS) delayed. The delays in review of PBs ranged from 1 to 344 working days, while

those of EISs ranged from 18 to 48 working days. Similarly, there were delays in the review and

approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports. Developers delayed to submit EIA

reports for a period ranging from 2 to 12 months and not all those who submitted were charged

fees. Out of the selected sample of 58 developers, 47% did not pay fees amounting to Shs.117.3

million.

1 The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010 by Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development2 National State of Environment Report, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv


ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERALv

environmental inspectors (including police);

organize training for Members of Parliament,

police and Judiciary on environmental crimes

and management; and provide institutional

support to Environment Protection Force

(EPF). It was observed that throughout most

of the period, the planned outputs were not

measurable; and although sensitization

and training of Members of Parliament was

planned, it was not done. NEMA did not also

adequately equip the Police for environmental

management as planned. By the time of audit,

the EPF had received only 1 old vehicle, 1

computer and 1 noise meter from NEMA to

facilitate its activities.

· In its efforts to enhance the access

to environmental information, NEMA

had a strategy to develop a Compliance

Management Information System (COMIS).

Despite the significant benefits that the

system was expected to bring, COMIS had

not been developed by NEMA; and it is not

likely to be developed soon, as there were

no indications of such a plan in NEMA’s work

plans and budgets for FYs 2008/09 to 2011/12.

Identification, Restoration, Demarcation

and Protection of fragile ecosystems

NEMA did not fully identify, restore,

demarcate and protect the ecosystem as

per its work plans and budget. A number

of planned activities were not implemented

despite substantial amounts allocated for

the purpose. The National Environment Fund

(NEF) has not been properly managed to

enable the Authority generate adequate funds

for environmental management activities.

At the time of audit (December, 2012), the

Authority had not collected Shs.5.56 billion

owed by various developers reported to

have submitted projects for EIA approval.

Environmental protection requires regular

field visits to be conducted. Although NEMA

reported to have spent Shs.1.52 billion on

inspection activities, there was no evidence

to show that all the inspections took place.

This partly explains the high level of non-

compliance by industries to environmental

protection and conservation requirements.

For example, 70% of the inspected industries

had not complied with proper environmental

management practices, such as: proper

sanitation, waste management, use of

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and

placement of signage within the factory

premises.

Promotion of Environmental Education,

Awareness and Enhancement of Access to

Environmental Information

· During FYs 2008/09, 2009/10

and 2010/11, NEMA planned to train

police, judiciary and prosecutors on

enforcement; train environmental journalists

on environmental reporting/publicity;

support Kampala Metropolitan Police

(training, funding, tooling, equipping); train



KEY RECOMMENDATIONS:

· The shortcomings identified in the

management of the National Environment

Fund (NEF) should be further investigated

and appropriate action taken to improve its

performance. The Board of Directors should

review the operations of NEF so as to make

it more effective in achieving its objectives as

stipulated under sections 89 and 90 of the

National Environmental Act.

· Management should put in place strong

monitoring and reporting mechanisms

to ensure that inspections are regularly

undertaken and reports prepared on a

quarterly basis.

· Management should carry out a

comprehensive audit of outstanding fees

relating to the approved Project Briefs and

EIAs and immediately recover the funds from

developers. In future all fees should be paid

by developers before an EIA certificate of

approval is issued.

· The Authority should develop and implement

the compliance monitoring information

system as soon as possible to keep track of

the environmental audits undertaken.

· To enhance compliance, NEMA should

consider instituting penalties for non-

compliant facilities and developers. This

would also enable the Authority to raise funds

for environmental management activities.

· NEMA should prioritize training/sensitization

of the major stakeholders like MPs, Judges,

Magistrates, private lawyers, and the Police

on natural resource management and

enforcement of compliance.

vi



CHA

PTER

ON

EC

HA

PTE

R O

NE

1



INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUNDThe National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) was established in 1995 as the

principal agency in Uganda charged with the responsibility of coordinating, monitoring, regulating

and supervising environmental management activities in the country.

1.2 MOTIVATIONThe prevailing state of Uganda’s environment is a cause for concern. The country’s progress

towards attainment of environmental sustainability has been ranked as slow3 and still “a dream4”.

Several reports also continue to indicate cases of environmental degradation through: overgrazing

(NSOER, 2010); cultivation, construction and settlement in wetlands and forest reserves (NEMA,

2011; IRIN, 2009); poor handling and management of domestic and hazardous waste (e.g. medical

waste, used oil and e-waste); and discharge of untreated effluent into fragile ecosystems (NSOER,

2010).

Despite the existence of a comprehensive legal framework governing environmental management

and the existence of a dedicated regulatory Authority in Uganda, there has been widespread

degradation of the environment. During FY 2008/09 to FY 2010/11, the Government of Uganda and

Development Partners invested a substantial amount of money of Shs. 48.47 billion in environmental

protection initiatives. There are also concerns that NEMA is failing in its duty to enforce compliance

to the existing legislation. Examples cited include: the construction of the MOGAS fuel depot at

Banda, a densely populated slum;5 the proposed sewage lagoon by Arua Hospital; and construction

of MM Integrated Steels (U) Ltd, in Masese, Walukuba, Jinja district, among others.

It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) carried out a Value for

Money Audit to assess whether NEMA is taking adequate steps to ensure sound environmental

management practices for sustainable development.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA

1.3.1 General DescriptionNEMA spearheads the development of environmental policies, guidelines, laws, regulations and

standards; it carries out monitoring to promote environmental compliance and advises Government

3 The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010 by Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development4 National State of Environment Report, 2010 5 Cf. New Vision, 14th February, 2010; “Sh5 Billion MOGAS Fuel Depot in Banda Irks Residents” by Steven Candia and

Gerald Tenywa

CHAPTER ONE



on sound environmental management in the

country. NEMA also exercises its mandate

through coordination and formation of

partnerships with the Central Government,

Agencies, Local Governments, Civil Society,

the Private Sector and the local and

international community.

1.3.2 Statutory MandateThe National Environmental Management

Authority is a semi-autonomous institution

established in May 1995, under Section 4(1)

of the National Environment Act, Cap153,

as the principal agency for environmental

management in Uganda. It is charged with

the responsibility of coordinating, monitoring,

regulating and supervising environmental

management in the Country.

1.3.3 VisionNEMA’s vision is: “To be an efficient Agency,

with people in Uganda living in a clean, healthy,

productive and sustainable environment”.

1.3.4 Mission StatementNEMA’s mission is: “To promote and ensure

sound environmental management practices

for sustainable development”.

1.3.5 Strategic ObjectivesThe strategic objectives of NEMA are:

i) To enhance environmental compliance and

enforcement;

ii) To strengthen environmental integration at

national and Local Government levels;

iii) To increase access to environmental

information, education awareness and

public participation;

iv) To strengthen the institutional capacity of

NEMA to perform its mandate;

v) To enhance national, regional and

international partnerships and networking

for effective environmental management

and sustainable environment.

1.3.6 ActivitiesThe major environmental management

activities of NEMA include:

i) Institutional capacity building of NEMA.

ii) Environmental compliance and

enforcement;

iii) Education, training and sensitization of the

public and lead agencies on environmental

management and sustainable development.

iv) Coordination with public and lead agencies

on environmental management and

sustainable development.

v) Enhancing national, regional and

international partnerships and networking

for effective environmental management

and sustainable development.

1.4 ORGANISATION STRUCTUREAccording to NEMA’s approved organisational

structure, the institution is governed by the

Policy Committee on Environment (PCE),

which is chaired by the Prime Minister,

the Board of Directors, and a Secretariat/

Executive. The Secretariat/ Executive carries

out NEMA’s functions on a day-to-day basis.

Whereas the PCE formulates and coordinates

environmental policies for the Authority, the

role of the Board includes, but is not limited

to: approving budgets, reviewing policies and

strategic plans.

The Executive Director (ED) is the CEO

of NEMA and is assisted by the Deputy

Executive Director (DED). He/she also directly

supervises the Senior Legal Counsel, Public

Relations Officer, Procurement Officer and

Internal Auditor. The DED supervises the

Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

(IMES), and four (4) Departments, headed by

Directors. For details refer to the organogram

(APPENDIX I).


ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL4

1.5 FUNDINGNEMA is funded bythe Government of Uganda (GOU) and Development Partners, such as: United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. During the Financial Years 2008/09

to 2010/11, total funding to the Authority amounted to Shs. 48.47 billion as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Showing Sources of NEMA’s funding

FUNDING (Billion SHS)

FY IDA GoU Other Income Projects TOTAL

2008/09 2.35 5.24 0.49 0.79 8.87

2009/10 1.57 5.37 0.81 0.20 7.95

2010/11 6.14 5.15 - 1.21 12.50

2011/12 12.36 5.15 - 1.64 19.15

TOTAL 22.42 20.91 1.30 3.84 48.47

Source: NEMA Financial Statements for 2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12

1.6 AUDIT OBJECTIVESMain Audit Objective

The main audit objective was to assess whether NEMA is taking adequate steps to ensure sound

environmental management practices for sustainable development.

Sub- Audit objectives:

To achieve the main audit objective and gain a better understanding of NEMA’s operations, the

following specific audit objectives were formulated:-

1. To assess the adequacy of the capacity building activities on environmental management.

2. To assess the effectiveness of NEMA’s education, awareness and sensitization efforts on

environmental management undertaken by NEMA for its staff and stakeholders.

3. To assess the extent to which NEMA has identified, restored, demarcated and protected all the

fragile ecosystems in line with its mandate.

4. To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of NEMA’s supervision, inspection and monitoring

regulatory mechanisms.

5. To determine the level of coordination between NEMA and its stakeholders on environmental

management.

6. To ascertain whether NEMA followed existing guidelines during review and/or certification

of Project Briefs, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Audit reports in the

period under review.

1.7 SCOPEThe Audit focused on the assessment of NEMA’s environmental management practices and

activities geared towards sustainable development during the Financial Years 2008/09, 2009/10,

2010/11and 2011/12. The Audit was carried out at NEMA Headquarters, selected districts and

facilities across the country to enable the team to make an overall assessment of the environmental

management activities carried out by the Authority.


ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL5

CHA

PTER

TW

OC

HA

PTE

R T

WO

2



AUDIT METHODOLOGY

This audit was conducted in accordance with the International Organization of Supreme Audit

Institutions (INTOSAI) Auditing Standards and the Office of the Auditor General Value for Money

Audit Manual. The standards require that the audit be planned in a manner which ensures that

an audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way and in a timely

manner.

2.1 SAMPLINGNEMA implements its activities countrywide. Fourteen (14) districts were selected for the audit.

2 districts (Kampala and Jinja) were selected because of the high level of development activities

affecting the environment while 4 districts (Mbale, Buhweju, Rakai and Bushenyi) were selected

because NEMA had planned to undertake specific environmental activities during the years under

review. The remaining 8 districts (Mukono, Wakiso, Soroti, Gulu, Bullisa, Ibanda, Mbarara and

Kabale), were randomly selected.

2.2 DATA COLLECTIONThe following data collection methods were used:

Document review

Various documents (as shown in Appendix ii) were reviewed to obtain an understanding of NEMA’s

legal mandate, general operations, activities, and assess its performance against the set targets.

Interviews

A total of 115 interviews were held with various officers from NEMA, sampled districts and selected

lead agencies, including the general public (Appendix iii) to assess the performance of NEMA. In

addition, telephone interviews were conducted where physical contact with some respondents was

not possible (Refer to Appendix iv).

Physical Inspections

Physical inspections were carried out to corroborate information obtained from document review

and interviews. The audit team visited selected fragile ecosystems (wetlands, riverbanks and

lakeshores), hilly/mountainous areas, randomly selected industries and Government and privately-

owned health facilities, to obtain physical evidence on levels of environmental compliance and

management. For details, refer to Appendix v.

CHAPTER TWO



CHA

PTER

TH

REE

CH

AP

TER

TH

RE

E

3



SYSTEM AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILTIES OF KEY PLAYERS

Policy Committee on the Environment (PCE)

The PCE is at the apex of NEMA’s institutional

set-up. It is composed of 11 members (Hon.

Prime Minister and 10 Ministers) as specified

in the First Schedule of the NEA Cap 153 and

is chaired by the Prime Minister. Its functions

are6:

(a) to provide policy guidelines, formulate and

coordinate environmental policies for the

Authority;

(b) to liaise with the Cabinet on issues affecting

the environment;

(c) to identify obstacles to the implementation

of environmental policies and programmes

and ensure the implementation of those

policies and programmes;

(d) to perform any other function that may be

assigned to it by the Government.

Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE)

The Ministry provides overall policy direction,

supervision, guidance and monitors the

performance of the Authority and the

implementation of Government policies and is

also the alternate Chair of the PCE.

6 Section 7(2) of the National Environment Act (Cap. 153)

CHAPTER THREEBoard of Directors (BOD)

The BOD consists of representatives from

MWE, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry

and Fisheries (MAAIF), Ministry of Finance,

Planning and Economic Development

(MoFPED), Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and

Antiquities and two representatives from the

academic and research institutions, local

non-governmental organizations and the

private sector. The Board sits at least once

every quarter as provided for in the Act.

The role of the BOD is to oversee the

implementation of environmental policies

and successful operation of the Authority.

It reviews policies and strategic plans,

provides guidance to the Executive Director

(ED) and the staff of the Authority and also

approves the annual budget and work plans

of the Authority. The BOD also monitors and

evaluates the performance of the Authority

against the set targets.

Technical Committees

The technical committees are set up by the

BOD on the advice of the ED. They meet on a

quarterly basis and are charged with the duty

of giving advice on subject matters relating to

the environment. They render advice on soil

conservation, licensing, pollution, biodiversity

conservation, and environmental impact

assessment.

Executive Director

The Executive Director (ED) is the Chief

Executive of the Authority and is responsible

for its day-to-day operations. He/she is

responsible for the management of the

Authority and its funds, property and business.

He/she is also responsible for monitoring the

performance of the Authority. The Executive

Director supervises the legal section of the



Authority, ensures coordination with the Board

of Directors, and with the MOWE. He/she also

liaises with the international community on

environmental matters and partnerships.

Lead Agencies

Lead agencies are either at the ministry

or government department level, and are

Environmental Inspectors gazetted by NEMA

and legally empowered among others to

issue an improvement notice directing the

proprietor to cease any activities harmful

to the environment and can cause a police

officer to arrest any person whom he/she

believes has committed an offence under

the National Environment Act. In addition

to enforcement, lead agencies also review

environmental impact assessment reports,

and environmental audit and compliance

reports. A list of major Lead Agencies in

Environmental Management is attached as

APPENDIX vi.

Local Governments

The Local Government Act, 1997,

decentralizes environmental management to

Local Governments at district and sub-county

levels. Following the restructuring of Local

Government administrative units,, a fully-

fledged department of Natural resources has

been established in the district structure.

At the district level, there are District and

or Municipal Environment Officers who are

gazetted by NEMA as Environment Inspectors

and have the powers to stop any activity which

is leading to destruction of the environment.

In addition to the district environment officers,

the National Environment Act also establishes

environment committees7 at all levels of local

government system.

7 Sec 14 of the NEA provides for establishment of local environment committees.

The committees promote environmental

management in districts through the

integration of environmental concerns into

district development plans.

The Police

The police is charged with the responsibility of

keeping law and order. There is an established

unit of Environmental Protection Force (EPF)

in NEMA headed by a Superintendent of Police

who reports to the Director Environmental

Monitoring and Compliance. The EPF head

also liaises with the Uganda Police, (DPP)

and other lead agencies during prosecution of

environmental offenders. An environmental

protection force unit has also been created

in the Uganda Police with regional offices

across the country in Kampala Gulu, Jinja,

Masaka and Masindi

The Public

Section 3 of the National Environment Act,

Cap 153 upholds the rights of an individual

to a decent environment and also a duty

to maintain and enhance the environment,

including the duty to inform the Authority

or the local environment committee of all

activities and phenomena that may affect

the environment significantly. The authority

or entity so informed as above is entitled to

bring an action against any person whose

activities or omissions have or are likely to

have a significant impact on the environment.

Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

DPP is a public office established under Article

120 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda. It is

responsible for the prosecution of all criminal

cases in the country. It has powers to direct

the Police to investigate and report back on

cases of a criminal nature. The DPP has

offices in many districts of Uganda supervised

by the Resident State Attorney (RSA).



Judiciary

The Judiciary is one of the three arms of Government and its mandate is enshrined in Article 126

(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. One of its core functions is to administer justice

through resolving disputes between individuals, and between the state and individuals. Judges and

magistrates hear and dispose of cases, including those on environmental crime, brought before

the courts of law. Other core functions of the Judiciary are: to interpret the Constitution and laws of

Uganda, promote the rule of law and to contribute to the maintenance of order in society, safeguard

the Constitution and uphold democratic principles and to protect the human rights of individuals

and groups.

3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The key processes on environmental management described in this section include: capacity

building, environmental compliance and enforcement, environmental education and awareness,

and coordination with stakeholders.

3.2.1 Environmental Compliance and EnforcementInspection Process

Inspections are one of the core elements of the compliance monitoring and enforcement function.

The authority carries out scheduled and ad hoc inspection of facilities and fragile ecosystems. A

scheduled inspection ensures that the facility operator presents him/herself to the inspector. Ad

hoc inspections are carried out in response to public complaints or correspondences from the

District Environment Officers (DEOs).

Prior to inspection, the inspector formulates a checklist of major environmental issues to look

out for, depending on the nature of the facility, location and activity, among others, in accordance

with the Guidelines for Environmental Inspectors Act, 1999. Following the inspections, reports are

prepared and the findings communicated to the management of the facility. Where necessary, NEMA

signs a compliance agreement with the facility managers, issues an improvement notice, or closes

the facility if there is gross non-compliance to sound environmental management practices. The

inspector may also recommend for a follow-up inspection to be carried out and its timing.



Figure 1: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Review and Approval Process8

3.2.2 Coordination with lead agenciesCoordination with Uganda Investment Authority (UIA)

The Investment Code Act, 1991,mandates UIA to issue investment licenses to investors. Under the

investment guidelines, investors are required to comply with environmental laws. After issuance of

8 As outlined in regulations 5 to 26 : Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998

Decision on 3rd Schedule?

Approval of EIS

Developer submits Project brief (PB) to

NEMA

Review of PB by NEMA

Developer Carries and submits EIS to NEMA for review

YES

YES

EIA Certificate Issued by NEMA

Project Begins

End

NO

NO

Monitoring by the public

Public and Lead Agencies are consulted for comments

Public is consulted for comments

Review and Approval of EIS by NEMA

Public and Lead Agencies are consulted for comments and public hearing done

KEY EIS: Environmental Impact Study



a license, UIA advises the investor who wishes

to undertake a project that is likely to have

a significant impact on the environment to

consult NEMA for guidance and permission.

Failure to adhere to environmental regulations

may lead to cancellation of an investment

licence.

Coordination with Police

During inspections, inspectors ensure that the

police are involved in situations where there

is likely to be hostility from the community.

There is an established unit of Environmental

Protection Force (EPF) in NEMA headed by

a Superintendent of Police who reports to

the Executive Director. The EPF head also

liaises with the Uganda Police, DPP and

other lead agencies during the prosecution of

environmental offenders.

3.2.3 Capacity BuildingTraining of NEMA Staff

NEMA’s strategic plan for 2009/10 to 2013/14

provides for training of staff on environmental

management, enforcement of its legal

framework and training of core staff and

specialists to handle emerging issues like

climate change, oil and gas.

Each department identifies the training

needs of its staff which are then included in

the departmental work plans and budget for

the year. The departmental work plans are

then integrated into the annual work plan and

budget of the Authority for approval by the

BOD. Training is then carried out in line with

the approved plan.

Training and gazettement of Environmental

Inspectors

NEMA selects key officials in consultation

with lead agencies including districts and

trains them in environmental management.

They are also trained in environmental law

and crime, collection of evidence, recording

of statements, and presentation of expert

evidence in court.

These officials are also trained on how to

carry out inspections and write standard

and inspection reports acceptable in courts

of law. Upon completion of the training, the

participants are: awarded certificates of

completion, which are gazetted9 and their

names published in the Uganda Gazette

for environmental inspectors, and they are

also issued with Environmental Inspectors’

identity cards.

3.2.4 Environmental Education and Awareness NEMA identifies an education/sensitization

need and then prepares the appropriate

sensitization materials, usually through the

Department of District Support Coordination

and Public Education (DSCPE) or the Executive

Director’s Office.

Over the years, NEMA has adopted a targeted

approach for sensitization on environmental

issues, focusing training on key stakeholders

such as MPs, Judges, Magistrates, private

lawyers, and journalists. NEMA also carries

out Training of Trainers (ToTs), which mainly

targets educationists (e.g. teachers), with the

aim that these will integrate and pass on the

environmental information acquired. This

environmental education is normally done

through trainings, workshops and seminars.

Finally, NEMA also produces and disseminates

information to the general public through

various media outlets such as radio, television

and newspapers.

NEMA also has a plan to develop an

environmental information management

system to promote environmental awareness.

9 Section 79 of the NEA mandates the Authority to Gazette Environmental Inspectors.



CHA

PTER

FO

UR

CH

AP

TER

FO

UR

4



FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents findings, conclusions and recommendations on the key environment

management activities of NEMA, divided under the following major themes:

1. Compliance and Enforcement

2. Promotion of Environmental Education, Awareness and Enhancement of Access to

Environmental Information

3. Coordination with Lead Agencies

4. Capacity Building

4.1 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

4.1.1 Review and Approval time for Project Briefs (PBs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)

According to the NEA Cap 153, all projects under the Third Schedule should be considered for EIA.

Regulations 6-9 of the EIA Regulations, 1998, require that Project Briefs should be submitted to

and reviewed by NEMA on time. Regulations 9(4) and 24(2) require NEMA, upon submission by the

developer, to review and approve PBs and EISs within 21 and 180 working days, respectively.

It was established that there were delays in the review and approval of project briefs. Out of a sample

of 21 PBs submitted by developers, only 4 (19%) were reviewed within the stipulated timeframe,

while 17 (81%) delayed.

On the other hand, it was noted that the review and approval of EISs was in most cases done in

time. Out of the 80 EISs sampled, 74 (93%) were reviewed and approved in time and only 6 (7%) were

delayed as indicated in figure 2 below:

CHAPTER FOUR



Figure 2: Review and Approval of PBs and EISs

19%

81%

93%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Approved in time

Approval delayed

Environmemntal ImpactStatements

Project Briefs

Source: OAG analysis

The delays in the review of PBs ranged from 1 to 344 working days, while those of EISs ranged from

18 to 48 working days.

During interviews, NEMA Management attributed the delayed review of PBs and EISs to:

· Failure by lead agencies to submit their review comments to NEMA in time. They explained that

lack of internet and inefficiencies in the postal services, especially for rural areas, resulted in

delayed delivery of PBs and EISs from NEMA, as well as the comments from lead agencies to

NEMA;

· Inadequate facilitation of environmental officers by lead agencies to carry out field verification

inspections before writing comments;

· Delayed response to queries raised during verification by developers and;

· Inadequate number of staff to review PBs and EISs yet the number of submissions was increasing

each month. The current NEMA staff structure provides for only three (3) EIA officers and one (1)

EIA coordinator.

Delayed review of PBs and EISs results in delayed Project implementation and in turn leads to

erosion of confidence in NEMA among the regulated communities; it also leads to implementation

of project activities by some developers prior to approval, thereby presenting a risk of environmental

degradation. It also has cost implications on some developers especially those with rigid timelines

and those who have acquired loans from financial institutions.

Conclusion:

Whereas the review of the Environmental Impact Statements was to a larger extent done in time,

there were significant delays in the approval of project briefs. Delayed review of PBs and EISs may

impact negatively on investment initiatives.

Management responses

Management notes the comments and clarifies as follows:

i) Experience has shown that more often than not, the quality of the PB is not good enough and



lacks the required information – as the

majority of developers lack the capacity to

produce a comprehensive PB (EIA report)

in a reporting format and kind of content

prescribed in the EIA Guidelines (1997) and

EIA Regulations (1998);

ii) NEMA requests the developer to redo the

PB by incorporating additional information;

and the process of review begins afresh

and thus, the review period is prolonged;

iii) In some cases, when a preliminary review

is carried out on a comprehensive PB,

there may be need for a detailed EIA to be

undertaken. Thus, the developer is advised

to go through the process prescribed for

full EIAs.

iv) The majority of DEOs’ Offices are not well

equipped – that is, in terms of availability of

computers, internet connectivity, cameras,

means of transport – that would enable

them to effectively and promptly carry out

field verifications, post-EIA monitoring, and

submit feedback on reviewed or inspected

sites in electronic form, besides the use of

hardcopies.

Recommendation:

· NEMA should ensure that lead agencies

improve on their review process to avoid

delayed submission of review comments

on the PBs and EISs.

· Developers should be given timelines

within which to respond to the queries

raised during reviews.

· NEMA should consider implementing

the recommendations made during the

Institutional Review exercise by Ernst

& Young, on staffing and setting up of

regional offices so as to develop stronger

management partnerships with Local

Governments10.

4.1.2 EIA Review and Approval According to the NEA Cap 153; all projects

under the Third Schedule should be

considered for EIA. Regulations 5 to 26 of

the Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations, 1998, outline the procedures to

be followed by the Authority during the review

and approval of submitted Environmental

Impact Statements (EISs). The terms of

reference (ToRs) for the Environmental

Impact Study should be developed in

consultation with the stakeholders and the

Authority. The Study should be carried out

by certified EIA practitioner(s) and the public

should also be consulted. The Regulations

further require that, during the review of

the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

NEMA should incorporate review comments

from lead agencies, and also call for written

public comments on proposed projects by

notice in a newspaper having national or

local circulation. Best practice also requires

that the Authority carries out field verification

inspections of an EIA site before approval is

granted.

Seventy nine (79) EIA certificates for the

approved projects were randomly selected

and analysed to assess the level of compliance

with the regulations governing the review and

approval process of the Environmental Impact

Statements.

Figure 3 below summarises the level of

compliance in the approval process of EIA as

discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

10 NEMA Institutional Review Report February, 2011, pg. 52



Figure 3: Showing level of compliance with the EIA approval process

0%

0%

53%

92%

99%

80%

100%

100%

47%

8%

1%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Public consulted by NEMA

Site verification inspections and approval by NEMA

Comments from LAs incorporated

Public consultation by EIA pracitioner

EIA carried out by approved practitioners

Development and approval of ToRs

% Non-compliance

% compliance

Source: OAG Analysis

(a) Development and approval of TORs for EIA

In the Financial years (2010/11 and 2011/12) all TORs were developed in consultation with NEMA.

This was an improvement from the previous years, 2008/09 and 2009/10 where only 47% and 70%

of the developers, respectively, undertook the consultation. On average, 80% of the developers

consulted NEMA during the development of TORs for EIA. Despite the lack of consultation during

2008/09 and 2009/10, the Authority approved the affected EISs.

Management attributed the improvement in consultation to more stringent quality assurance

checks adopted by the Authority.

Without consultation, key environment concerns may not be addressed during the impact

assessments. It also leads to many queries by NEMA on the EIS which may delay the review and

approval of the EIS.

(b) EIS carried out by approved practitioners

Generally, Environmental Impact Studies were carried out by certified environmental practitioners

over the years. The review of documents showed 99% compliance level in this aspect. A review of

the sampled EIA reports revealed that there was at least a certified EIA practitioner during each of

the environmental impact studies.

(c) Public consultation by the Developer

It was observed that although the EISs submitted contained a “list of persons consulted”, some

reports had only one person consulted, while others had only the manager of the proposed facility

and the LCV chairman having been consulted.

Furthermore, in all the reports reviewed there was no evidence to show that the developers invited



the public to participate in the studies as required under Section 12 (2 a) of EIA regulations, 1998.11

Management Response:

In projects which are likely to have significant social and environment impacts, developers do invite

the public through the media to participate and make comments during the study. However, the

failure by some developers to invite the public to participate in the EIA process through mass media

is due to the cost it adds to the whole EIA process which is a planning tool but then is construed as

an obstacle to development. In cases where inadequate consultations have been undertaken by

the developer, NEMA advises the developer to repeat the process.

(d) Review comments from lead agencies

The document review also revealed that in some instances, comments by the lead agencies were

not incorporated in the review process as required by the Environmental Impact Assessment

regulations.

Only 53% of the selected projects had the reviews of lead agencies incorporated in the review

process. NEMA attributed this to the failure or delays by the lead agencies to respond and submit

review comments for reports forwarded to them. District Environment Officers (DEOs) interviewed

attributed their failure to submit their review comments in time to delays in delivery of the EISs

for review which are sent by post/courier. Audit confirmed this through physical verification of

documents in Rakai and Bushenyi districts whereby post/courier services delivered EISs after the

due dates of submission of review comments to NEMA.

(e) Public consultation by NEMA

There was no evidence to show that NEMA called for written public comments in line with

Regulations 19 and 20 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998, for any of the

projects reviewed. This meant that public concerns about projects were not considered during the

review and approval process.

Failure by NEMA to adequately involve and consult the public has resulted into construction of

facilities in areas where they are not suitable, such as: construction of buildings in wetlands,

and bars and churches in residential areas. Other examples included: the construction of the

MOGAS fuel Depot at Banda, a densely populated slum12, a sewage lagoon by Arua Hospital; and

construction of MM Integrated Steels (U) Ltd, in Masese, Walukuba, Jinja district.

11 12. Public participation in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS)

(1) The developer shall take all measures necessary to seek the views of the people in the communities which may be affected by the project during the process of conducting the study under these regulations.

(2) In seeking the views of the people under sub-regulation (1), the developer shall -

(a) publicise the intended project, its anticipated effects and benefits through the mass media in a language understood by the affected communities for a period of not less than fourteen days;

(b) after the expiration of the period of fourteen days, hold meetings with the affected communities to explain the project and its effects; and

(c) ensure that the venues and times of the meetings shall be convenient to the affected persons and shall be agreed with the leaders of local councils.

12 Cf. New Vision, 14th February, 2010; “Sh5 Billion MOGAS Fuel Depot in Banda Irks Residents” by Steven Candia and Gerald Tenywa



(f) Site verification /inspections

There was no evidence that NEMA had carried out site verification/ inspections before approval of

any of the selected EISs. There is a danger that NEMA may approve a project based on falsified

data/ information contained in the submitted EIS, more so in cases where no review comments

have been received from the lead agencies.


The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Officers do carry out verifications and make reports on

some sites but most of the verification is undertaken by DEOs and other lead agencies in line with

the policy, legal and institutional framework for environmental management in Uganda.

Auditor’s Remarks:

Although management provided field verification reports, specific site verification reports were not

availed.

4.1.3 Collection of EIA fees Section 37(1)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998, mandates NEMA to

levy a specified fee to the developer for any project brief or environmental impact assessment

submitted for review. The fees payable depend on the size of the project (project cost), as specified

in Schedule three of the same regulations (Appendix vii).

Analysis of fees data relating to 58 randomly sampled approved Project Briefs and Environmental

Impact Statements showed that NEMA collected only Shs.131,557,000 (53%) out of Shs.248,832,740

assessed from 45 out of 58 sampled developers, leaving Shs.117,275,740 (47%) outstanding. This

is as a result of the inefficient debt recovery and billing system. For example, payment of EIA

fees is not demanded unless developers come to pick their certificates of approval at NEMA and

unjustifiable correction of invoices. Appendix vii refers.

Further analysis showed that the assessment of 4 projects at Shs. 50,733,840 was carried out

without information on the project cost, which is the basis of assessment. In the absence of

project costs, we could not confirm that the projects, as shown in the Table 2 below, were correctly

assessed and paid for.



Table 2: Showing Projects Assessed without Project Costs

SN EIA NO. DEVELOPER PROJECT NAME AMOUNT

ASSESSEDACTUAL

PAID

1 4012 Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Ltd.

The Ngege Field Appraisal Drilling and Well-testing Operations

46,483,840 46,483,840

2 4038 MN Paper and Newsprint Ltd Paper Manufacturing Plant 2,000,000

2,000,000

3 4023 Adrift Adventure Company Kalagala Falls Tented Camp 2,000,000

2,000,000

4 2485 The Broadband Company Proposed Wimax Base Station 250,000

250,000

TOTAL 50,733,840 50,733,840


It was also noted that 9 out of the 58 sampled projects lacked proof of project assessment although

Shs.3,300,000 out of the payable Shs.5,250,000 was collected as indicated in table 3 below:

Table 3: Showing Projects without proof of Assessment

SN EIA NO. DEVELOPER PROJECT NAME AMOUNT

PAYABLEACTUAL

PAID

1 3044 M/s Elgon springs(U) Ltd Elgon springs service station 750,000

-

2 2664 Orange Uganda Ltd Orange base Transceiver station 500,000

500,000

3 3045 Uppex Petroleum Company Ltd

Reconstruction of uppex petroleum 500,000

500,000

4 2740 Nile Breweries Ltd Electricity sub station 1,000,000 -

5 3909 MTN Uganda Base Transceiver station 500,000 750,000

6 3637 Airtel Uganda Ltd Karuma radio base station 500,000 500,000

7 4156 Amans Properties Limited The Proposed Amans Apartment and Gardens 750,000

50,000

8 2356 Mr. Mwesigye RobertMwitanzigye filling station- Outlet for sale of retail and bulk petroleum products

250,000 500,000

9 3788 Orange Uganda Ltd Proposed Base Tranceiver 500,000 500,000

TOTAL 5,250,000 3,300,000


Inefficiencies in the assessment, debt recovery and billing systems have resulted into under

collection which, in turn, affects NEMA’s ability to mobilize funds for environmental conservation

and natural resources management activities.



Conclusion

The EIA process was not fully adhered to

by NEMA and the developers. This greatly

undermines NEMA’s ability to make sound

judgments on EISs submitted for approval.

Irregularities in assessment and collection

of EIA review fees as required by law,

has hampered the implementation of

environmental management activities.

Management Response

Management notes the observation. However,

Management wishes to state that before

approval is given for Project Briefs and EIAs,

invoices are issued to developers. An office

has already been created for debt recovery,

and this has significantly improved the

monitoring of outstanding fees due to NEMA.

Management further states that no certificate

of approval is issued out to a developer without

proof of payment in form of a receipt issued by

the Accounts section of NEMA.

Auditor’s Comment

NEMA should not wait for developers to come

and collect certificates of approval at their own

wish because a service has been rendered,

invoices issued and projects commenced.

Recommendations

· NEMA should develop mechanisms of

ensuring that developers undertake

adequate consultations with the Authority

when preparing TORs for EIS and where

this is not done, EIA certificates should not

be issued.

· NEMA should ensure that the public is

always informed and consulted about

the projects to be undertaken by the

developers.

· NEMA should explore more efficient

means of delivering EISs for review by Lead

Agencies in order to minimize delays.

· NEMA should ensure that site-verification/

inspections are carried out by its officers

and/or Lead Agencies prior to project

approval.

· NEMA should strengthen its assessment,

debt recovery and billings mechanisms.

· NEMA should carry out a full audit of

outstanding payments for already approved

Project Briefs and EIAs and recover the

fees due from developers.

4.1.4 Submission of Environmental Audit (EA) ReportsEvery EIA certificate issued by NEMA

indicates the due date for submission of

the first Environmental Audit (EA) report by

the developer to the Authority for review;

it is NEMA’s responsibility to keep track of

environmental audit reports that are due for

submission.

One hundred (100) EIA certificates approved

by NEMA were randomly selected from the

Authority’s registry to establish whether

developers were submitting EA reports after

issuance of EIA certificates. The results of the

analysis showed that only four (4) developers

out of the selected sample had submitted

environmental audit reports for review and

these reports were not submitted on time.

The delays ranged from 2 to 27 months as

shown in Table 4 below:



Table 4: Showing the number of months Developers delayed to submit EA reports

Name of developer Project Location

Due date of submission

of the first EA report

Actual date of

submission of the first EA report

Delay (months)

Nile Agro-Industries Ltd

Grain Milling and Animal Feeding Processing Factory

Not Indicated 1st November, 2010 21st December, 2010 2

Prime Petroleum Company Ltd Prime Fuel

Filling Station

Plot 141, Block 175 Along Gayaza Rd, Gayaza B, Nangabo Sub-county, Wakiso District

1st November, 2010 1st August, 2011 9

Coca-Cola/Century Bottling Company Ltd

Expansion and Alteration Works

The Industrial Business Park, Namanve, Kiwanga Mawotto Village, Nantabulirwa Parish, Mukono

31st July, 2011 18th July, 2012 12

Seyani Brothers & Co. (U) Limited

Seyani Brothers Stone Quarry and Crusher

Nangwa Lc1, Namuyenje Parish, Nakisunga Sub-County, Mukono District

1st November, 2009 24th January, 2012 27

Source: NEMA Environmental Audits’ Database

There was a very high level (96%) of non-compliance as indicated in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4: Showing the Level of Compliance to Submission of EAs by licensed facilities

Source: OAG Data Analysis



Through interviews with management, it

was observed that the Authority did not

have a proper system to keep track of which

Environmental Audit reports were due for

submission.

As long as NEMA does not keep track of

which Environmental Audit reports are due

for submission and ensure that developers

comply with this obligation, it will not be able

to realize its statutory mandate to monitor all

projects for likely environmental impacts.

Conclusion

Submission of environmental audits by

developers would assist NEMA to monitor

compliance by the licensed facilities with the

conditions of approval in the EIA Certificate

and this would allow the Authority to take

appropriate measures and rectify situations

of non-compliance as soon as possible.

NEMA’s inability to keep track of Environmental

Audit reports due for submission presents a

risk that the Authority may not be effectively

monitoring, regulating, supervising and

enforcing sound environmental management

practices for sustainable development.

Management response

· We acknowledge this challenge. However,

experience has shown that submission

of the Environmental Audit report within

one year (as is normally stipulated on the

certificates of approval) is not very practical

since many projects take longer to take

off after receiving EIA approval. This may

account for some of the observed delays.

· NEMA is in the process of revising the Audit

Regulations and the National Compliance

and Enforcement Strategy 2008 to

accommodate emerging issues, penalties

and fees;

· The Compliance Monitoring System is

under development

Auditor’s Comment

In collaboration with the Norwegian

government NEMA had started the

development of the Compliance Monitoring

System. However, this development has been

hindered by the suspension of the donor

support.

Recommendation

· The Authority should expeditiously conclude

the development of the Compliance

Monitoring Information System13 so as to

keep track of environmental audits due for

submission.

· The Authority should expedite the process

of reviewing the Audit regulations and the

National Compliance Strategy.

· The Authority should also ensure that all

licensed facilities and developers become

fully compliant and the non-compliant

facilities should be penalized in accordance

with the law.

4.1.5 Identification, Restoration, Demarcation and Protection of fragile ecosystemsSection 2 (2) (f) of the National Environment

Act Cap. 153 mandates NEMA to reclaim lost

ecosystems, where possible, and reverse

the degradation of natural resources. NEMA

planned to identify, restore, demarcate

and protect selected fragile ecosystems as

indicated in Table 5 below:

13 As per the National Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, 2008



Table 5: Showing Planned and Actual Activities for the Fragile Ecosystems

FY Planned Activity Actual Outputs Remarks

2008/09

1. Identify 6 fragile

ecosystems for Protection:

Rwenzori, Elgon, Victoria,

Kyoga, the Nile, Aswa and

Kigezi regions.

6 Wetlands Restored:

Kinawataka, Lubigi

(Kampala), Bwera

(Kasese), Chondo and

Rubale (Ntungamo) and

Muhanga (Kabale).

Although 6 wetlands

were identified, they

were not all selected

from the planned area.

For example, no wetland

was picked from Elgon,

the Nile, Aswa and Kyoga

regions.

2009/10

2. Restore fragile ecosystems

within Lake Victoria shores,

the Upper Nile and hilly

or mountainous areas in

parts of the country and

Establish Model Nurseries

and Woodlots in 20 Sub-

Counties.

637 acres of trees

planted within shores/

banks and catchment

areas of Lakes Victoria/

Nakivale and River Nile.

Model Nurseries

and Woodlots in 20

Sub-Counties NOT

established.

3. Protect Green Belts in

Urban areas: Mbale,

Kampala and Bushenyi

towns.

Landscaping for green

belt establishment

in Bushenyi-Ishaka

Township was

completed.

Activity to protect Green

belts in Mbale and

Kampala urban areas not

undertaken. In Bushenyi

the activity which was

scheduled for FY 2009/10

delayed, but had been

completed at the time of

audit inspection (October,

2012).

2010/11

4 Restore, Demarcate,

Gazette and Protect

Wetlands in Kampala,

Mukono, Wakiso and Mpigi.

Activity not undertaken.

Activity to be undertaken

by Wetlands division in

MWE.

Source: NEMA Annual Performance Reports for FYs 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11

NEMA spent Shs.375,802,700 on the implementation of the above activities as shown in Table 6

below:



Table 6: Summary of Expenditure on Fragile Ecosystems across the Country

FY Budget (Shs) Expenditure (Shs) %age of funding

2008/09 90,000,000 112,244,000 125.0%

2009/10 460,000,000 124,019,500 27.0%

2010/11 140,000,000 139,539,200 99.7%

Total 690,000,000 375,802,700 (Average) 84%

Source: NEMA final accounts 2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11

It was noted that some of the planned activities were not implemented. In FY 2008/09, no activity

was undertaken to protect the fragile ecosystems identified in the Elgon, Nile, Aswa and Kyoga

regions although these had been planned for. In FY 2009/10, the activities to establish model

nurseries and wood lots, and the protection of the green belts in Kampala and Mbale were not

undertaken. In addition, we did not obtain evidence showing that activities planned in FY 2010/11

were implemented.

Demarcation and Gazetting of Wetlands in Greater Kampala

This activity was not fully undertaken by the Authority. According to management, although initial

planning was done by the Authority, the activity was transferred to the Wetlands Division of the

Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE). According to data obtained from the Wetlands division

and staff interviews, demarcation of some wetlands had not started while with others it was on

going. Table 7 below summarizes the status of wetlands demarcation:

Table 7: Status of Wetlands Demarcation by Wetlands Division

Wetland Location Status of activity

Nakivubo wetland Greater Kampala Demarcation on-going. So far, 32km have been marked with pillars and beacons.

Kyetinda wetland Greater Kampala Taking of control coordinates in progress.

Kinawataka Wetland Greater Kampala Demarcation to start in FY 2012/13.

Lubigi wetland Greater Kampala Demarcation to start in FY 2012/13.

Kirinya wetland Walukuba, Masese, Jinja Demarcation on-going

Okole Wetland Lira Demarcation on-going

Tochi Wetland Gulu Demarcation on-going

Nyaruzinga Wetland Bushenyi Demarcation on-going

Nakayiba Masaka Demarcation on-going

Source: Wetlands Division, MWE

The failure to identify, restore, demarcate and protect the ecosystem was attributed to management’s

inability to implement its annual work plans and the failure to mobilize adequate funding.



Audit Inspection of Selected Fragile Ecosystems:

i. Kinawataka and Naalya-Kyaliwajjala Wetlands

From physical inspections, it was noted that many parts of Kinawataka and Naalya-Kyaliwajjala

wetlands had been encroached on and reclaimed. Pictures 1 and 2 below show the reclamation of

Kinawataka and Naalya-Kyaliwajjala wetlands, respectively:

Picture 1: Showing unregulated sand mining in Kinawataka Wetland at Butabika

Source: OAG Photo

Picture 2: Showing construction by National Housing and Construction Company in

the Naalya-Kyaliwajjala wetland

Source: OAG Photo

ii. Restoration of Fragile Ecosystem within Lake Victoria Shores (River Bukora, Rakai District)

From field inspection, it was observed that the restoration and protection of River Bukora in Rakai

district was carried out. Vegetation along the river bank had started regenerating. However, it was

observed that there was silting of the river bed at the Mutukula Bridge. Signs of re-encroachment

were also observed as evident from the cassava gardens and banana plantations which were less



than 30 meters from the highest water mark of the river14. The silting of the River bed at Mutukula

Bridge was caused by the drainage channels along the Mutukula-Masaka road which were directed

into the river as shown in Picture 3 below:

Picture 3: Showing Silting of River Bukora at Mutukula Bridge

Source: OAG Photo

iii. Protection of Green Belts (Bushenyi District)

The green belt next to Bushenyi district headquarters was restored by NEMA in collaboration with

Rotary Club of Bushenyi which sought to develop it into a leisure park. During field inspection,

it was observed that terraces had been constructed on the green belt to reduce the run-off of

rainwater and control soil erosion; walkways had been built and the green belt had been fenced

off to prevent encroachment. The belt had regenerated and there were no signs of encroachment

and degradation. Rotary Club was yet to re-open the park for public use. Picture 4 below shows

the restored green belt in Bushenyi district.

Picture 4: Showing a restored green belt in Bushenyi District

Source: OAG Photos taken on 3rd October, 2012 at 11:21 AM

The widespread reclamation of fragile ecosystems (wetlands, lake shores, river banks) can partly be

attributed to weaknesses in environment monitoring and enforcement by NEMA and lead agencies.

14 This is contrary to regulation 28(2) of the National Environment (Wetlands, Riverbanks and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, 2000.



This has resulted into loss of ecosystem

cover, silting of lakes and river beds; thereby

reducing the water levels of lakes and rivers

as was the case with River Bukora before its

restoration was done. Also, since Wetlands act

as a buffer and natural filter for rivers before

drainage into the lakes, their reclamation has

led to greater pollution of lakes such as Lake

Victoria; as a result recent statistics indicate

that the cost of treatment of water at Ggaba

Water Works Treatment Plant had increased

fourfold15 in the last ten years.

Conclusion:

NEMA did not fully identify, restore, demarcate

and protect the ecosystem as per its work

plans and budget. A number of activities as

discussed in Table 5 were not implemented

despite substantial funds allocated towards

these activities.


i) For FY 2008/09, all the interventions were

in the planned areas. Elgon and Aswa sub

regions were not covered partly because

of the reprioritisation of urban wetlands,

especially Kampala, and insecurity in the

Acholi and Lango sub regions made it difficult

to work there.

Auditor’s Comment

There was no evidence availed for the

reallocation of funds as a result of

reprioritisation.

ii) Management notes the observation

on wetlands demarcation. Management,

however, states that in the FY2009/10, NEMA

did plan to demarcate and restore the vital

15 20 years of Wetland Conservation-Have Uganda Wetlands become Waste lands again. Public Talk at Uganda Museum Kampala by Dr. Aryamanya-Mugisha, Henry (Ph.D)

wetlands within Kampala from Government

of Uganda funding; communities were

mobilised, technical planning done, but

actual demarcation not funded due to MTEF

funding gaps.

iii) During the FY 2010/11 planning and

budgeting period, at the Water and

Environment Sector Working Group meeting,

where NEMA is involved, it was decided that

demarcation of wetlands all over the country

should be the responsibility of the Wetlands

Management Department in the Ministry of

Water and Environment (MWE). Henceforth,

reallocation of funds was done within the

Sector to fund this activity.

Recommendations:

· The process for Wetlands demarcation

should be expedited as many wetlands in

the country are in danger of reclamation

and extinction if not protected.

· NEMA should liaise with Bushenyi district

authority to ensure that the Rotary Club

adheres to the conditions stipulated in the

permit; especially to avoid construction of

permanent structures on the green belt

and ensure wise use by the public.

· NEMA should liaise with the National

Roads Authority (UNRA) and Rakai district

to ensure that silt traps are put in place

at appropriate intervals of the drainage

channels along the Mutukula - Masaka

road and that regular emptying of the silt

traps and dredging is done to clear out the

silt in the river bed.

4.1.6 Management of the National Environment Fund (NEF)The National Environment Fund (NEF) was

established under section 88 (1) of the NEA

with the objective of funding environmental



conservation and natural resources management, including districts and lead agencies.

It was observed that the fund was not efficiently used to fund such activities by the districts and

lead agencies. The Fund records instead show that it was used for other investment ventures, such

as: acquisition of commercial office premises at US dollars 3,304,000, and investments in fixed

deposits which left the Fund completely depleted.

The Authority, on top of depleting the Fund had acquired a mortgage facility of US dollars 1,211,814

to complete payment for the premises. The loan obligation has impacted on the timely interventions

needed for environment conservation.

Although section 90 (2) empowers the Board to invest money from the Fund in conformity with

good commercial practice, no proper justification was provided for such a huge investment at the

expense of environmental conservation and natural resource management, which is the core

business of the Authority.

Further scrutiny of these transactions revealed the following matters;

a) The Board approved the purchase of the premises without confirming the availability of the

funds as required by the PPDA Act and regulations, and as a result, the Authority at one time failed

to raise the funds and was sued by the property seller. NEMA had to pay an extra US dollars 40,710

(approx. Shs.100 million in form of arbitration settlement charges). The Authority has also incurred

payments of interest on the mortgage to the tune of US dollars 68,968 between August 2011 to

August 2012. These additional costs would have been avoided if proper arrangements had been

undertaken to secure adequate financing of the premises.

Management Response

i) The fund which had been earlier invested in fixed deposits was converted with its earned interest

into real estates. No fixed deposits were maintained by management after the acquisition of the

real estate.

ii) The investment was approved by the Board after considering various investment options

with the money available. The approval included not only investment in real estate, but also

environment management activities, including: public education and awareness, restoration

activities, support to Lead Agencies and inspections and in the public private partnership in the

investment of a commercial incinerator.

iii) The above investment in real estate was cleared by the Solicitor General, and approved by the

Minister of Water and Environment, as well. The purpose of this investment was to address the

long term financial sustainability of NEMA and its investments in environmental management

activities.

b) Scrutiny of the sampled accountabilities revealed some glaring irregularities. For example, the

District Support Officer (DSO) was advanced Shs.418,939,500 (APPENDIX ix) to directly purchase

tree seedlings on thirteen different occasions contrary to PPDA regulations, which require

competitive bidding. Further scrutiny revealed that there were discrepancies between the number

of seedlings purchased and distributed as per Table 8 below:



Table 8: Showing the discrepancies between the number of seedlings purchased and

distributed

SEEDLINGS GREVILLEA EUCALPTUS MUSIZI TERMINALIA NKOMBA

Purchased 384,079 41,150 88,970 58,800 0

Distributed 286,700 48,500 15,000 129,000 3,000

Variance 97,379 (7,350) 73,970 (70,200) (3,000)

Source: NEMA Accountabilities and delivery forms

Seedlings purchased at a value of Shs.85,674,500 for Grevillea and Musizi (average price: Shs.500)

were not distributed. No explanation was given for the purported over distribution of Eucalptus,

Terminalia and Nkomba.

It was also noted that some beneficiaries received more seedlings than stipulated in the Memoranda

of Understanding (MoUs).

Table 9: Comparison of seedlings to be supplied as per MoU with actual supplied

S/N LOCATIONQTY OF SEEDLINGS TO BE SUPPLIED AS

PER MOU

QTY OF SEEDLINGS SUPPLIED (ACTUAL)

DIFFERENCE

1. Bethelehem Catholic Parish - Nabgasa - Rakai District 22,500 49,500 27,000

2. Bunya Senior Secondary School - Bunya Parish 7,500 3,000 (4,500)

3. Kyebando Catholic Parish -Kyebando Parish - Mayuge District 4,800 40,600 35,800

4. Mitala Maria Parish - Katebo , Mpigi 13,000 33,000 20,000

5. Waka waka Beach Management Unit - Waka waka Landing site 9,600 50,600 41,000

6. Wanyange Girl’s S. S. S- Jinja District 15,000 29,000 14,000

GRAND TOTAL 72,400 205,700 133,300

Source: OAG analysis of NEMA MoUs with Beneficiaries and Delivery Forms

Conclusion

The NEF has not been properly managed to enable the Authority to generate enough funds and

implement environmental management activities.




Management notes the above observation and states that:

The option to advance funds to the DSO referred to above to directly invest in the restoration

activities, including tree planting, was reached by Management based on the following:

(a) Initially, management undertook similar activities through Grant Management Bodies, and this

didn’t yield the intended objectives. The accountabilities were not forthcoming and the results on

the ground were not satisfactory;

(b) Management adopted the approach of directly disbursing funds to districts with which they

had signed MoUs, and was faced with various challenges including money getting to the district

bank accounts at a time when a third party has secured an order to freeze its accounts for various

reasons;

(c) Management subsequently considered the option of centrally procuring inputs such as

seedlings, but faced challenges, associated with the transportation and handling of these seedlings

from the vendor to the communities as many of them either weathered or got damaged in transit.

(d) Management therefore adopted the approach of advancing funds to staff to directly purchase

seedlings from within the beneficiary communities in order to minimise handling challenges,

motivate the local communities and finally enhance local ownership of the projects which are also

under obligation to nurture them.

Auditor’s Comment

Management of NEMA did not handle procurement of seedlings in accordance with PPDA

regulations and the procurement was not properly accounted for.

Recommendations

· The Board of Directors should ensure that NEMA management implements activities as per

work plans and budget.

· The Board of Directors should ensure that the Fund of the Authority is properly administered in

accordance with sections 89 and 90 of the National Environmental Act.

· The irregularities in the management of the NEF funds should be further investigated.

4.1.7 Environmental Inspections NEA Cap 153 Sec. 80, spells out the powers and duties of Environmental Inspectors and according

to NEMA’s strategic plan, one of the functions of the Environmental Monitoring and Compliance

Department is to carry out inspections of entities to monitor their environment management

practices. Accordingly, the Authority planned to carry out field inspections by NEMA staff as

illustrated in Table 10:



Table 10: Expenditure on Field Inspections by NEMA

FY PLANNED ACTUAL %AGEAMOUNT

PLANNED (SHS)AMOUNT SPENT

(SHS)

2008/09 780 897 115% 255,000,000 210,762,176

2009/10 600 867 114% 604,104,000 710,454,297

2010/11 300 799 266% 140,000,000 493,851,878

2011/12 900 - 399,940,000 104,847,943

TOTAL 1,399,044,000 1,519,916,294

Source: NEMA Final Accounts and Performance reports (FYs 2008/09 to 2011/12)

Table 10 above shows that the Authority superseded its planned targets as it carried out more

inspections than planned. However, it was noted that there was over expenditure of Shs.460,202,175

in FYs 2009/10 and 2010/2011.

It was also noted that although there were clear guidelines and criteria for selection of the facilities

to be inspected, as assigned in the Compliance and Enforcement strategy, there was no evidence

that NEMA was following the guidelines in selection of facilities for inspection.

Conclusion

The failure by NEMA to follow guidelines in the selection of facilities for inspection as spelt out

in the Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, 2008 hampers effective monitoring of environment

management practices of entities. This may lead to non-compliance with sound environment

management practices.


There was additional support from the World Bank during the project restructuring, which provided

the extra funding.

Unplanned inspections are undertaken as a result of complaints and/or emergencies that require

the intervention of NEMA. Because of their adhoc nature yet they at times take up valuable

man-hours and institutional resources, these inspections are also reported upon and when this

is combined with the implemented planned inspections, it appears that more inspections are

undertaken than planned.

Routine monitoring and inspection of all the facilities in the country call for more resources and

personnel, which could be the major reason that could lead to what the report rightly identifies as

what “may lead to non-compliance of entities with sound environment management practices”.

AUDIT INSPECTION OF SELECTED HEALTH FACILITIES AND INDUSTRIES

Audit inspection of health facilities and industries revealed that there were several instances of

non-compliance with proper environment management practices, as illustrated below:



Inspection of Health Facilities

Out of the thirteen (13) health facilities inspected only one (1) facility (Entebbe Grade B Hospital)

had been inspected by the Authority. Medical waste disposal was not done according to sound

environmental management practices. For example, medical waste should be segregated in

colour-coded bin liners and disposed off appropriately: highly hazardous medical waste (in red

bin liners) and hazardous medical waste (in yellow bin liners) should be incinerated, while non-

hazardous medical waste (in black bin liners) can be disposed of together with ordinary domestic

waste.

However, it was noted that in many health facilities, there was poor waste segregation at the

disposal points. Highly hazardous medical waste was being dumped together with domestic waste,

as shown in Pictures 5 and 6 below:

Pictures 5-6: Waste management in Mbale and Gulu Hospitals

Picture 5: Open disposal of waste at Mbale Referral Hospital; Domestic waste is dumped together with highly hazardous medical waste (in red bags). Source: Picture taken by OAG

Picture 6: Non-segregation of medical waste at Gulu Referral HospitalSource: Pictures taken by OAG staff

To illustrate the dangers of poor medical waste management, we used the case of open burning

of waste, and use of sub-standard incinerators, as shown below:

Open burning of waste and use of sub-standard incinerators in health facilities

Out of the 13 health facilities inspected, it was established that only 61% had incinerators on site,

31% practiced open burning of medical waste on site as they had no incinerators, while 8% used a

private waste handler, as shown in the pie chart below (FIGURE 5).

Figure 5: Waste disposal methods at

health facilities




There was no temperature calibration or documentation for any of the incinerators inspected

indicating maximum combustion temperature. However, estimated maximum temperatures,

obtained from interviews with personnel from the health facilities inspected, ranged from 450-

10000C. This is lower than the WHO recommended standards for incineration of medical waste

(greater than 10000C) for attainment of complete combustion of the waste.

Poor waste management and disposal was partly due to limited monitoring and coordination by

the Authority and inadequate environmental assistance to health facilities. Many health facilities

also lacked adequate knowledge on proper waste management and disposal practices.

Lack of incinerators for disposal of medical waste exposes healthcare workers and the community

to infections, toxins, and potential injury. Burning medical waste in open spaces exposes

communities to dioxins, an environmental hazard. Poor management and disposal of medical

waste is associated with many health hazards and risks like cancer, depletion of the ozone layer

and risk of communicable diseases from contaminated blood, among others.

For example, incomplete combustion of health-care waste may lead to formation of particulate

matter, dioxins, furans and other toxic air pollutants (WHO, 2004). Long term, low-level exposure of

humans to dioxins and furans may lead to the impairment of the immune system, the impairment

of the development of the nervous system, the endocrine system and reproductive functions.

Short-term, high-level exposure may result in skin lesions and altered liver function. Exposure of

animals to dioxins has resulted in several types of cancer16.

The black, foul-smelling smoke from these incinerators and open-burning sites inconvenienced

hospital clients and neighboring communities. Audit noted complaints in Nsambya, Entebbe Grade

B, Mukono Municipal Council, and Mbale Referral Hospitals. In addition, the sharps (needles,

blades and syringes) and glass vials from the incinerators remained unburnt. In some facilities,

these were piled up in open places, exposing passersby to the risk of potential injury.

Conclusion

Whereas it is the responsibility of the health inspectors and lead agencies to monitor and provide

environmental assistance to health facilities, there was limited coordination between NEMA and

health facilities.

Management Responses:

Management concurs with the general observation on medical waste challenges in the country.

We note that:

i) Although the Ministry of Health has well-streamlined arrangements for handling medical waste,

there is still a challenge, as observed. The generators of waste by law are supposed to manage

their waste and NEMA has trained several Health Inspectors to enforce such laws.

ii) The following specific efforts on health care and medical wastes have been initiated by NEMA

and other partners;

(a) Through the collaboration between NEMA and KCCA, medical wastes no longer go to Kitezi

landfill;

16 WHO Fact sheet N°281- Health Care Waste Management (October, 2011)



(b) A medical waste handling company (Bio-Waste) has been licensed by NEMA to manage such

waste and all health/medical service facilities in the Greater Kampala have signed MoUs with the

company; by 2010 there was no such a company to handle medical waste; and

(c) NEMA worked with Green Label Services to establish regional medical waste management

facilities with support from USAID starting with Iganga for Eastern Uganda;

(d) NEMA has licensed NLS Uganda Limited to handle medical waste.

Further, NEMA has guided the Ministry of Health to plan and budget for the management of health

care and medical wastes in all government health facilities while at the same time ensuring that the

private health/medical service providers have medical waste management strategies.

NEMA will continue to guide lead agencies in this category (e.g. Health, Education, Industry, Agriculture,

etc) that facilities operating under their dockets have to adhere to the environmental needs of the

same and that the sectors must inspect more routinely.

Recommendations

· NEMA should follow the guidelines for the selection of facilities for inspection as spelt out in the

Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, 2008.

· NEMA management should carry out inspections of hospital and health facilities and also provide

environmental assistance to inspected facilities.

· Management should also engage the health inspectorate division in the Ministry of Health and

Districts on the need to carry out regular inspections on environmental aspects of medical waste

management and disposal and they should also make periodic reports to the Authority on the

same.

· NEMA should implement its strategy of construction of commercial incinerators to handle

hazardous waste at health facilities as recommended by the Board17

Inspection of Industries

10 Industries (APPENDIX v) were inspected to assess the level of environmental compliance and

management. It was established that all the above industries had been inspected by NEMA at least

once during the last four years.

Out of the ten industries visited, 30% generally complied with sound environmental management

practices, while 70% were largely non-compliant, as shown below in Figure 6:

Figure 6: Percentage of compliant vs. non-compliant industries

30%

70%

Generally Compliant

Largely Non-Compliant


17 52nd Meeting of the Board of Directors



Examples of generally compliant industries included: Nile Breweries; Leather Industries Uganda

(LIU), which had Environment Officers in place, and generally observed good sanitation and waste

management practices (See Pictures 8 and 7 below). These industries also had fire extinguishers

and proper signage in place, and registered high compliance with personal protective equipment

(PPE) usage, among others.

Pictures 7-8: Waste management practices at Nile Breweries and LIU

Picture 7: Solid Waste segregation bins at Nile Breweries Ltd. (OAG Photo).

Picture 8: Drainage channelling waste from the production area to the effluent treatment plant at Leather Industries Uganda (OAG Photo).

Major cases of non-compliance were observed in industries, such as: Mbale Soap Works (Mbale)

and Sky Fat Leather Tannery (Jinja), among others; details as outlined below:

Mbale Soap Works

· Poor general sanitation within the plant and outside.

· No effluent treatment plant (ETP) in place; untreated effluent was released into a neighboring

stream, as illustrated in Pictures 9 and 10 below:

Pictures 9-10: Release of untreated effluent by Mbale Soap Works (MSW)

Picture 9: Effluent discharge point at Mbale Soap Works (OAG Photo)

Picture 10: Stream into which discharge flows (OAG Photo)

·



The facility lacked an Environment Officer; had very unhygienic toilet and bathroom facilities; very

old/obsolete machinery; lacked fire-fighting equipment; and had no signage (e.g. “NO SMOKING”,

“FIRE EXIT”, etc) in place.

Sky fat leather tannery

· Poor waste management practices at Sky Fat Leather Tanneries, resulting in overflow of

factory waste both within and outside the tannery (See Pictures 11 and 12 below).

Pictures 11-12: Overflow of factory waste at Sky Fat Leather Tannery

Pictures 11 and 12 (L-R): Overflow of factory waste within and outside the production area of Sky Fat tannery (OAG Photos)

Failure to treat wastewater from sanitation and cleaning activities; the detergents used in

cleaning contained phosphates which are major contributors to eutrophication in water

bodies18. This is of concern since Sky Fat is located next to Lake Victoria.

· Dried-up vegetation in the constructed wetland, lowered the efficiency of the Effluent Treatment

Plant;

· Unpleasant odour;

· Inadequate usage of Personal Protective Equipment

Inadequate inspections by NEMA are one of the major causes of non-compliance with environmental

regulations. Audit observed that there was a relationship between compliance with environmental

legislation and frequency of inspections by NEMA. Audit found that industries like Nile Breweries

and Leather Industries Uganda (LIU), which generally observed proper environment management

practices, were frequently inspected by NEMA. On the other hand, those which were rarely

inspected by NEMA, such as: Mbale Soap Works, exhibited high levels of non-compliance.


Management takes note of concerns on compliance and clarifies that:

a) NEMA has continued to mentor Lead Agencies and local governments to integrate environment

and natural resources management in their respective plans and budgets (mentoring and

supervision reports are available for verification);

b) NEMA gazzetted and trained over 300 Environment Inspectors in Lead Agencies and Local

18 Planning and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs (UNEP, 2000)



Governments in order to enhance environmental compliance and enforcement;

c) The Government of Uganda has provided Environment Protection Force to complement the

efforts of NEMA in ensuring effective compliance and enforcement through surveillance/

monitoring,, and environmental crime prevention and management;

d) The general observation is that lead agencies functioned effectively when they were receiving

funds from NEMA under EMCBPI and II project which has long closed.

Recommendation

· Whereas management of the environment is a decentralized function, NEMA should coordinate

with lead agencies and Local Governments to ensure that sound environmental management

practices are observed and also carry out independent inspections.

· NEMA should ensure that lead agencies, including Local Governments, submit periodic reports

on their operations, as required by law, to enable the Authority to effectively inspect and monitor

the environment.

4.2 PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, AWARENESS AND ENHANCEMENT OF ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

4.2.1 Training and sensitization The National Environment Act, Cap 153, section 86 (1) (e) mandates the Authority to carry out

public information and education campaigns in the field of environment. Accordingly, NEMA in its

strategic plan planned to sensitize MPs, judges, magistrates, prosecutors, police, private lawyers,

and journalists on natural resource management and enforcement of compliance.

During FYs 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11, NEMA planned to train police, judiciary and prosecutors

on enforcement; train environmental journalists on environmental reporting/publicity; support

Kampala Metropolitan Police (training, funding, tooling, equipping); train environmental

inspectors (including police); organize training for police and Judiciary on environmental crimes

and management; and provide institutional support to the Environmental Police Force (EPF).

In FYs 2009/10 and 2011/12, the planned outputs on training and sensitisation were not measurable.

A summary of NEMA’s performance on the above activities over the years is as shown in Tables 11,

12 and 13 below:

Table 11: Training and sensitization of Parliamentarians

FY Planned output Budget (Shs) Expenditure(Shs) Actual output

2008/09Train 30 Parliamentarians on environmental laws

40M 0 Not done (no funding)

2009/10Organize training on compliance/ enforcement for MPs

25M -0 Not done (no funding)



2010/11 No activity planned N/A N/A N/A

2011/12

Organize a sensitization workshop for the parliamentary committees

30M 13.2M

One-day sensitisation workshop for MPs of the Natural Resources Committee on Environmental Enforcement and Funding Challenges held on 3rd May 2012 at Imperial Royale hotel.

Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance reports and final accounts.

Table 12: Training and sensitization of Police, Judiciary and Prosecutors

FY Planned Outputbudget(Shs)

Actual Expenditure(Shs)

Actual Output Auditor’s Remarks

2008/09

Organize 6 regional workshops to train police, judiciary and prosecutors on enforcement

150m

No report as to whether this activity was undertaken or not, and how much was spent on it.

2009/10

Organize training for police and Judiciary on environmental crimes and case management

25,000,000 24,770,000

Eastern Region Police Force trained (60 participants)

Judiciary and DPP’s Office not trained. Training re-scheduled for FY 2010/11.

2010/11 Not planned for N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011/12

Sensitization of State Attorneys and Magistrates on judicial activism on environmental case management and environmental laws (one workshop)

35mWorkshop held on 14th April, 2012.

No information on how much was spent on it.



(i) Management recognizes the important role played by the Police, Judiciary and Prosecutors

in supporting the enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and standards. NEMA trained

officers for other regions in the earlier financial years. The training in eastern Uganda was carried

out in 2009/2010.



Table 13: Training for environmental journalists on environmental reporting/publicity

FY Planned OutputPlanned Expenditure(Shs)

Actual Expenditure(Shs)

Actual Output Auditor’s Remarks

2008/09

Train 30 environmental journalists on environmental reporting/ publicity

20M 20M1 Training workshop for journalists was held in Serena Hotel.

2009/10

Organize 1 workshop for Environmental Journalists

20M 38M

Activity conducted and Editors were exposed to environment management and challenges in western Uganda- (Hima cement, Mpanga Hydro power, wetlands in Ntungamo etc)

This activity cost an extra 18 million (90% more than planned), due to a change from the originally planned activity.

2010/11 Not planned for - 30M Editors’ exposure to oil/gas activities in the Albertine Graben

This activity does not appear in NEMA’s annual work plan for the year.

2011/12 Not planned for N/A N/A N/A N/A


The table 13 above shows that Shs.88 million was spent on this activity over the years, as opposed

to Shs.40 million actually planned.

NEMA did not also adequately equip the Police for environmental management as planned. The

Environment Protection Force (EPF) had received only 1 old vehicle, 1 computer and 1 noise meter

from NEMA to facilitate its activities.

NEMA attributed the failure to carry out most of the planned training, sensitization and re-tooling

activities to inadequate funding. Audit attributes this to failure to prioritize the activity.

Inadequate training and/or sensitization of MPs, judges, magistrates, private lawyers, the police

and journalists on natural resource management and enforcement of compliance hampers

NEMA’s plans and efforts to promote sound environmental practices through the involvement of

these stakeholders19.

19 20 years of Wetlands Conservation in Uganda – Have Uganda’s Wetlands become Wastelands Again? (Aryamanya-Mugisha, 2011)



Conclusion

· NEMA did not adequately sensitize MPs, judges, magistrates, private lawyers, and the police

on natural resource management and enforcement of compliance as planned during the

review period yet these are some of the major stakeholders. Failure by NEMA to hold adequate

campaigns to ensure that these key players have access to environmental information, education

awareness and public participation may be detrimental in its efforts to protect the environment

and ensure environmental management and sustainability.

· NEMA did not equip the Environmental Protection Force with tools for enforcement as planned.


i) The workshop for Environmental Journalists 2009/2010 included both a one day workshop

in Margarita Hotel in Kasese and exposure visit in Mbarara, Bushenyi, Kasese, Kabarole and

Bundibugyo to familiarise the media with the environmental hot spots in the region. The

additional funding came from the World Bank restructured budgets.

ii) EPF was launched in December 2011 yet it had been expected earlier. At the time of the

launch, the budget which had been allocated under EMCBPII had ceased due to project closure

in November, 2011. The equipment being used by EPF was availed from what was existing

within NEMA at the time. In addition, the Board approved Shs.100m from NEF to kick start EPF

activities;

iii) NEMA appreciates the role of training and will at the earliest opportunity allocate funds to this

activity.

Recommendation:

NEMA should prioritize training/sensitization of MPs, Judges, magistrates, private lawyers,

journalists and the police on natural resource management and enforcement of compliance since

they are the major stakeholders in the drive to protect the environment and ensure environmental

management and sustainability.

4.2.2 Establishment of a Compliance Management Information System (COMIS)Section 2.7 of the National Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, 2008 provides for the

establishment of a Compliance Management Information System (COMIS). Accordingly, NEMA

planned to establish an Environmental Management Information System (EMIS) estimated

at Shs.50M. According to the strategy, COMIS would provide an online internet-based platform

through which NEMA could ably receive, evaluate, retain, and investigate all notices and reports

required of facilities in coordination with lead agencies, the Emergency response Unit (ERU) and

the general public, as illustrated in Figure 7 below:



Figure 7: Showing envisioned information-

sharing linkages in the COMIS

Source: NEMA National Compliance Monitoring

and Enforcement Strategy, 2008.

COMIS would maintain a comprehensive inventory of

approved projects, including application, facility, and

location approval conditions; discharge monitoring

reports; inspection results; enforcement actions;

and compliance schedules. COMIS’ online capability

would enable the Authority and lead agencies to

compile, manage, track, review, and report on the

compliance status of approved facilities. The system

would also enable inspectors to upload inspection

data on a daily basis from any location where an

internet connection is established. The public

would also be able to register their complaints

online through a public access link. In order to

facilitate easy tracking of information upload by

inspectors, each inspector would be assigned a

unique login identification number (ID) identified

by the organization they belong to and a personal

number. Each lead agency would also have a unique

number and all NEMA inspectors would also have

unique numbers.

Despite the significant benefits that the system

was expected to bring, the COMIS had not been

developed by NEMA as per strategy; and plans for its

development had not been included in NEMA’s work

plans and budgets for FYs 2008/09 to 2011/12. It was

also observed that different units within NEMA’s

department of environmental monitoring and

compliance operated independent databases and

there was no established platform for the databases

COMIS CENTRAL SERVER AT NEMA

Public Access Port

Lead Agency server client

NEMA Inspector/ERU server client

District Server client

to share information internally and also with lead

agencies and the public as they all lacked internet

capability and online access.

It was also noted that the Authority lacked an

IT Steering Committee20 whose key role, among

others, would be to provide strategic guidance and

champion the use of IT best practices, which require

alignment of IT goals with those of the organisation.

Absence of the COMIS presents a significant

challenge in the coordination efforts of NEMA with

lead agencies and the public and this has negatively

impacted on NEMA’s efficiency and effectiveness

on environmental monitoring and compliance

enforcement. For example, the DEOs interviewed

confirmed that copies of PBs, EISs and EAs were

received late.

Conclusion

Management’s failure to prioritize and develop COMIS

has negatively impacted on its capability to monitor,

regulate and supervise environmental management

and share information with its stakeholders.


The Compliance Monitoring System is under

development.

Auditor’s Comment:

As earlier noted, development of the Compliance

Monitoring System which had been initiated by NEMA

in collaboration with the Norwegian government has

stalled following the suspension of donor support.

Recommendation:

COMIS should be developed and implemented

expeditiously, in line with the strategy; and during

its development its capability should be further

extended to provide for: online review and comments

of Project Briefs, EIAs and Environmental audits by

lead agencies and the public.

20 Section 10 (1) of the NEA provides for the BOD to appoint as many technical committees as it considers necessary.



4.3 COORDINATION WITH LEAD AGENCIES

4.3.1 Coordination with Police, DPP and the Judiciary in enforcing compliance and prosecuting of offendersNEA Cap 153 Sec. 3 (3) gives NEMA the mandate to

take an action against any person whose activities

or omissions have or are likely to have a significant

impact on the environment. Section 6.5 of NEMA’s

Strategic Plan for FYs 2009-2014, outlines NEMA’s

roles and the Lead Agencies’ roles in regard to

coordination of environment management as: NEMA

files cases of environmental crime to police and

provides guidance and evidence to police and DPP.

The Police investigates and the DPP prosecutes.

It was noted that there was no formal coordination

or forum where these institutions regularly meet

to discuss environmental cases. There was also no

database at the Authority showing the number of

cases registered by NEMA with police, number of

cases investigated by CIID, number of cases taken

up by DPP for prosecution or number of cases won/

lost by the Authority.

Lack of a formal coordination mechanism and a

database has hindered efforts by NEMA to effectively

coordinate its activities with other relevant

institutions in enforcing environmental compliance

by the public.


Management notes the concern; there is a formal

mechanism with Police through EPF and with the

DPP for coordination; the database for all cases

prosecuted by the NEMA Legal Section and EPF is

available.

Auditor’s Comment:

There was no evidence of a formal coordination with

Police or DPP, but at one time attempts were made

to come up with one.

NEMA has a list of cases prosecuted, which does

not help it to coordinate its activities with other

relevant institutions or to track the status of each

case. In fact, the list can be used by NEMA to build

its Database.

Recommendations:

· NEMA should develop a formal mechanism for

coordination of activities among the concerned

Government institutions involved in the

enforcement of environmental laws.

· NEMA should maintain a database on the number

of cases registered with police, number of cases

investigated by CIID, number of cases taken up by

DPP for prosecution and on the number of cases

won/ lost by the Authority.

4.3.2 Preparation of the National Land Use PlanThe National Land Use Plan is an important land

management tool, which provides guidance on

how best to utilize the available land in the most

environmentally sustainable and economically

beneficial manner. A specialist in Soil and Land

Use at the Authority cited poor land use planning

as being one of the major reasons why there is a

tremendous decline in prime agricultural land

across the country.

Section 48 of the National Environment Act, Cap 153,

requires NEMA to issue guidelines and prescribe

measures for land use planning at the local, district

and national levels. The Act also requires NEMA to

prepare the National Land Use Plan in consultation

with the lead agency (MoLHUD). Local Governments

should also ensure that their land use plans conform

to the National Land Use Plan.

It was noted that guidelines for land use planning

had not been issued by the Authority. According to

NEMA management, for the National Land Use Plan

to be developed, the National Land Use Policy and

Act need to be in place. It was, however, noted that

the MoLHUD finalized the land use policy way back

in May, 2007.

Management also explained that the preparation of

the National Land Use Plan is now being undertaken

by MoLHUD with NEMA being one of the key



Conclusion

Sharing information on the environment between

stakeholders is vital for efficient and effective

monitoring, supervision and management of the

environment for sustainable development. Access

to timely and accurate information on activities and

projects within the environment remains a challenge

that needs to be urgently addressed if the Authority

is to effectively perform its functions.

Management Response

a) Management notes that the frequency and

regularity of reporting by Lead Agency (LAs) is not as

required. However, there are efforts to engage LAs

on their obligations to report on their operations.

NEMA developed and disseminated Guidelines on

Environmental Reporting by LAs;

b) LAs such as UWA, the Fisheries

Departments, NFA, Wetland Inspection Department,

Water Resources Management Department,

Makerere University Institute of Environment and

Natural Resource (MUIENR) and District Local

Governments, among others, have been submitting

reports to NEMA. These reports have been very

useful in proving information for the National State

of the Environment Reports;

stakeholders. However, no statutory instrument

delegating this function to MoLHUD was in place at

the time of Audit.21

Conclusion

Preparation of the National Land Use Plan is the

responsibility of the Authority but is now being

undertaken by MoLHUD, without any delegation

from NEMA. This is an indication that there is

limited coordination between these two government

entities.

Management Response

Management has taken note of the concern;

NEMA has actively participated in the process of

formulating the NLUP. NEMA is part of the Country

and Town Planning Board under the MLHUD.

Recommendation

NEMA should formally delegate its function of

formulating the National Land Use Plan to MoLHUD

and should issue guidelines and prescribe measures

for land use planning at the local, district and national

levels.

4.3.3 Reports from Lead AgenciesSection 6(4) of the National Environment Act, Cap

153 requires each lead agency charged with the

management of any segment of the environment

under any law to submit to NEMA, within two months

after the expiry of every two years, a report on its

operations during that period.

It was established that no lead agency had submitted

a report to the Authority as required by law. There

was no evidence to show that NEMA had made any

effort to engage lead agencies on their obligation to

report on their operations.

Failure by Lead Agencies to submit reports to the

Authority as required by law hinders NEMA’s ability

to effectively coordinate, monitor and regulate

environmental management activities countrywide.

21 According to Section 5(2) of the National Environment Act, Cap 153, the Authority may in the performance of its functions delegate, by statutory instrument, any of those functions to a lead agency.

Case in Point: Uganda Investment Authority (UIA)Between FY 2008/09 and FY 2011/12,

UIA issued 1,306 investment licenses for

projects. One of the conditions on every

investment license requires the investor

to “take necessary actions to ensure

that the operations of the business

enterprise do not cause injury to the

ecology or environment.” However, UIA

did not share with NEMA the details

of investment licenses issued and the

Authority had also not engaged UIA

on the need for this. This is a risk that

projects with significant impacts on the

environment can be undertaken without

prior consultation with the Authority



c) Recently, corporate bodies, such as: the Commercial Banks and BAT, among others, have started

including environmental performance into their annual corporate reports;

d) An Environmental Information Network (EIN) is already established with various LAs through which

much information is generated and shared.

Recommendation

The Authority should dialogue with lead agencies and other stakeholders to come up with practical strategies to

improve information sharing for responsive, effective and sustainable environmental management.

4.3.4 Response to Public ConcernsSection 3 (2) of the National Environment Act, Cap 153, upholds the right of a citizen to a decent environment

and his/her duty to maintain and enhance the environment, including the duty to inform the Authority or the

Local Environment Committee of all activities and phenomena that may affect the environment significantly.

The major public complaints addressed to NEMA were on: noise pollution, poor waste management and wetland

degradation. In order to establish NEMA’s efficiency and effectiveness in handling public concerns, telephone

interviews were carried with selected complainants to establish their levels of satisfaction with the way NEMA

responded to their complaints.

Overall, 16% of respondents were satisfied with NEMA’s performance, while 84% were not satisfied. Their

dissatisfaction was largely due to the perception that NEMA failed to take action on complaints raised. Figure 8

below shows the results of the telephone interviews:

Figure 8: Showing the Levels of satisfaction of complainants


The interviews further revealed that NEMA took action on 35% of the complaints. Where NEMA responded,

25% of respondents deemed its response as effective because its intervention was prompt, and the problem

was solved. However, 75% felt NEMA’s intervention was not effective or partially effective, either because the

problem persisted even after it took action, or the problem only briefly subsided and then reoccurred.

It was also noted that NEMA did not operate a complaints desk and there were no formal procedures for

handling complaints. There was no register of complaints and for some of the complaints that were received,

there was no evidence of how they had been resolved.

NEMA’s failure (actual or perceived) to take action on complaints undermines public confidence in the institution,

and its commitment to promoting sound environmental management practices for sustainable development.



Indeed, common perceptions among respondents

were that NEMA is apathetic to the plight of the

common man regarding environmental crimes;

and that NEMA’s powers are stifled by political

interference.

Conclusion

Public perception regarding NEMA’s response to

complaints is negative; an indication of an institution

that needs to manage its reputational risk and this

is a cause for concern, given that the public are the

major stakeholders and partners in environmental

management for sustainable development.


a) Management acknowledges the concerns and

perception by the public about NEMA’s response

to complaints;

b) Management also notes that the initial efforts to

have a Complaints Desk and a Call Centre worked

well when there was funding available. However,

we still receive the complaints directed to NEMA

but timely response is still a challenge.

Recommendation

Management should put in place strategies to restore

public confidence and improve the image of the

institution. One such strategy could be to establish a

complaints desk and/or a call centre and if possible

with a toll-free line; whose functions, among others,

would include:

· Receiving complaints from the public;

· Forwarding them to relevant officers;

· Keeping complainants updated on what NEMA is

doing to address their concerns; and

· Following up with the complainants to find

out whether the problem ceased after NEMA

intervened.

4.4 CAPACITY BUILDING

4.4.1 Staff Training and supportAccording to NEMA’s Strategic Plan (2009/10

to 2013/14), NEMA planned to train staff on

environmental compliance and enforcement of the

legal framework (40 staff), and environment sub-

sector action planning (20 staff). In addition, all its

specialists and core personnel were to be trained to

handle emerging environmental issues like oil/gas

and climate change.

It was observed that NEMA planned to train staff

every year. However, the Annual Work Plans and

Budgets (AWP&Bs) did not indicate what type of

training would be provided, and how many officers

would be trained. Between FY 2008/09 and 2011/12,

Shs. 312,875,163 was spent on this activity.

Table 14 below shows planned and actual

expenditure and outputs for training of NEMA staff

for the period under review:

Table 14: Training of NEMA staff

FY PLANNED OUTPUT PLANNED EXPENDITURE

ACTUAL EXPENDITURE

ACTUAL OUTPUT

AUDITOR’S REMARKS

2008/09 Staff training 20,000,000 34,654,678 - Over-spending; No output reported

2009/10 Train staff and partners 55,000,000 48,796,734

21 NEMA staff trained in Management Skills at UMI.

The training conducted deviated from the planned outputs in the Strategic plan.

2010/11 Staff training 80,100,000 229,423,7516 NEMA staff trained on oil and gas

Over-spending

2011/12 40 NEMA and Lead Agency Staff trained 195,100,000 - - No output reported




As shown in table 14 above, NEMA did not report on outputs of trainings carried out in FYs 2008/09, and 2011/12.

Audit also noted serious deviations from the trainings planned for in the strategic plan. For instance, in the FY

2009/10, 21 staff were trained in management skills at UMI, instead of climate change or environment sub-

sector action planning. Only six staff were trained in oil and gas. Table 15 below shows the planned training

targets as per the strategic plan, versus the actual status at the time of audit.

Table 15: Tracking targets for NEMA Staff training as per Strategic Plan

TYPE OF TRAINING PLANNED (NO. OF STAFF)ACTUAL

(NO. OF STAFF)

Environmental compliance and enforcement of the legal framework

40 0

Sub-sector action planning 20 0

Training to handle emerging environmental issues like oil/gas and climate change.

All NEMA technical staff and specialists

Oil and gas6

Climate change0

NEMA attributed the inability to train its staff over the years to inadequate funding. However, analysis of budget

performance indicated that in FYs 2008/09 and 2010/11 actual expenditure on staff training exceeded the

amounts budgeted.

Failure to carry out staff training as envisioned in the strategic plan means NEMA may not be able to effectively

and efficiently deliver its mandate as expected.

Conclusion

NEMA may not be able to realize the goals in the strategic plan as it did not come up with specific annual

targets/outputs for type of training to be provided and number of staff to be trained in line with this plan. In

addition, NEMA deviated from the trainings specified in the strategic plan.

Management Response

a) Management recognises the importance of training.

b) The training of 6 experts in 2010/2011 in oil and gas was undertaken over a longer period than planned due

to training demands.

Recommendations

· NEMA should ensure that its Annual work plans and Budgets contain specific targets for training its staff on

compliance, environmental sub-sector action planning and emerging issues, in line with the strategic plan.

· NEMA should train its staff as planned in the Annual work plans and Budgets.



4.4.2 Support to Districts to produce DSOERsAccording to NEMA’s Strategic Plan for FYs 2009/10 to 2013/14, NEMA planned to provide technical and financial

support to districts to prepare the District State of Environment Reports (DSOERs).

Interviews with NEMA management revealed that districts were not given financial support but were only

supported through training at workshops. It was noted that from FY 2008/09 to FY 2011/12, NEMA spent

Shs.189,925,000 on this activity. Table 16 below shows the expenditure on support to districts to produce

DSOERs.

Table 16: Expenditure on support to Districts to produce DSOERs

F/YPlanned

expenditure (Shs)

Actual expenditure

(Shs)

Districts Earmarked for Support

Actual Districts

SupportedDSOERs produced

2008/09 60,000,000 10,080,000 24 23 0

2009/10 20,000,000 55,895,000 45 65 2

2010/11 30,000,000 46,380,000 40 13 0

2011/12 60,000,000 77,570,000 40 48 0

TOTAL 170,000,000 189,925,000 2

Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance Reports and Accountabilities

From table 16 above, only two (2) districts of Mpigi and Nebbi produced DSOERs. NEMA management and the

DEOs interviewed attributed the failure by districts to produce DSOERs to inadequate funding.

The DSOERs provide important information on the prevailing environmental, fisheries, agricultural and land-

use status in the districts and also feed into the National State of Environment Report (NSOER). Without the

DSOERs, the accuracy of the NSOER is questionable and the districts cannot adequately identify, report on and

address the major environmental challenges faced countrywide.

Conclusion

While NEMA largely achieved its planned targets to support districts to produce DSOERs in the training area,

the intended objective of this activity was not realized; indicating that provision of training without financial

support to districts has not been effective. On the other hand, however, provision of financial support has proven

to be relatively more effective. For example, in the FY2003/04, when NEMA used to provide financial support, 50

districts prepared DSOERs.


a) Management notes that in spite of the trainings only 2 districts (Nebbi and Mpigi) were able to produce

DSOERs. However, NEMA is mandated to train districts and it is their role to mobilize resources to produce

DSOERs the way Nebbi and Mpigi did. Given the financial constraints, NEMA will not be in position to support

districts to produce DSOERs;

b) Management also notes the low prioritization of this activity in district budgets and will therefore continue

emphasizing the importance of this activity to the districts.



Auditor’s Comment

Training of districts to produce DSOERs has proved to be ineffective; thus NEMA should try the agreed option of

financial support in the strategic plan.

Recommendation

There is need for the Authority to consider reviewing this strategy if the continued expenditure on this activity

is to yield fruit.

4.4.3 Training and Gazetting of Environmental InspectorsAccording to Section 79 of the NEA, the Authority may, by notification in the Gazette, designate as many officers

as it deems fit from duly qualified public officers to be environmental inspectors.

During the period from FY 2008/09 to FY 2011/12, the Authority spent a total of Shs. 411,229,378 to conduct

training of inspectors as shown in the table 17 below:

Table 17: Training of Gazetted Environmental Inspectors

FY No. Planned for Training Actual Trained Variance Planned

Expenditure (Shs)Amount Spent

(Shs)

2008/09 300 367 (67) 142,000,000 187,763,000

2009/10 367 70 297 173,828,000 158,000,000

2010/11 297 155,000,000 31,000,000

2011/12 - - - 34,466,378

TOTAL 470,828,000 411,229,378

Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance Reports and Accountabilities.

Although the Authority spent Shs. 411,229,378 on training of inspectors, it did not involve them in inspection

activities. There was no evidence that the inspectors ever prepared reports for NEMA’s use.

Environmental inspectors were last gazetted by NEMA in 2008 and their licenses expired in June 2011.

The Authority has been slow on handling this matter due to the limited coordination between NEMA and the

relevant stakeholders and lead agencies.

Non gazettement of inspectors has impacted on their performance, especially in district local governments, and

also hampered the work of the inspectors. For example, some DEOs in districts visited indicated that, on many

occasions, they had been denied access to facilities and at times their powers had been challenged in court.

Conclusion:

NEMA did not train all gazetted inspectors as planned and it has also not renewed the expired licences of

those trained, hence jeopardizing its efforts in environmental policing through the use of these inspectors.

Environmental degradation is going on unabated, especially in rural areas, due to limited watch over public

activities.




NEMA used to train inspectors with funding from the World Bank. The project has closed and this funding is no

longer available and as such NEMA will be constrained to carry out further training within the current budget.

Recommendations:

· NEMA should ensure that training of inspectors is carried out as planned and all those whose licences have

expired should be immediately renewed to enable them carry out inspection activities.

· All funds spent on the training of inspectors should be properly accounted for.

· NEMA should maintain a database of all gazetted inspectors clearly showing their areas of operation.

· The Executive Director should ensure that all gazetted inspectors are accountable to him in accordance with

the National Environment Act and submit regular reports on their inspection activities.

4.4.4 Training of Trainers (TOTs)According to NEMA’s strategic plan, NEMA planned to carry out TOT for teachers and school staff in environment

education. A comparison of NEMA’s planned output against actual performance is shown in table 18 below:

Table 18: Training of Trainers (TOTs)

FY PLANNED ACTUAL

Funding (Shs) Output Funding (Shs) Output

2008/09 60,000,0006 TOTs for teachers and environment education programs in tertiary institutions

15,000,000

Organized 4 TOTs for teachers in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD);Centre of excellence established in Mbarara University;University Chancellors sensitized on ESD.

4 TOTs for teachers;Monitoring in 6 districts;Environment Education School competition in Katakwi District.

2009/10

15,000,000 Organize 2 TOTs on EE/ESD for teachers and school staff of schools and tertiary institutions; 600 teachers and school staff country wide targeted for training

9,000,000

TOT for School Environment Education Program organized in Ibanda, Isingiro, Nakaseke and Katakwi districts.

2010/11 15,000,000Organize 2 TOTs on EE/ESD for teachers and staff of schools and tertiary institutions

5,000,000 -

2011/12 40,000,000Develop and implement quarterly School Environment Education Programs

- -

Total 130,000,000 29,000,000

Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance Reports and Final accounts

From the table above, it can be seen that the planned outputs in terms of number of teachers/ educators/

school staff were not specified in all the years, except for FY 2009/10. In this particular year, the actual number

of teachers trained was not indicated in the performance report.

Failure to realize the set targets was attributed by management to inadequate funding.



Conclusion

NEMA did not meet its set targets for Training of Trainers. Also, the targets for this output were not specific/

measurable. In the absence of specific targets and proper recording and accountability mechanism, expenditure

totalling to Shs.29, 000,000 could not be justified by the Authority.


Tables of specific planned and actual output are attached (Refer to ANNEX at the end of the report).

Auditor’s Comments:

The indicated planned and actual outputs relate to quarterly work plans, which should have been derived from

the annual targets.

Recommendations

· In future, NEMA should ensure that it comes up with specific, measurable outputs for all its planned activities,

which should be implemented accordingly, in order to accurately track its performance.

· NEMA should ensure that the funds budgeted for training of TOTs are adequately released as budgeted.

John F. S. MuwangaAUDITOR GENERAL



GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Compliance Assistance

Training and/or support given to facilities to enable them comply with environmental legislation.

Ecosystem

Biological environment consisting of all the organisms living in a particular area as well as all the non-living physical components of the environment with which the organisms interact such as air, soil, water and sunlight.

Effluent Waste water or other fluid of industrial, domestic or agricultural origin, treated or untreated, and discharged directly or indirectly into the aquatic environment.

Environmental AuditSystematic, documented, periodic and objective evaluation of how well environmental organization, management and equipment are performing in conserving the environment and its resources.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Systematic examination conducted to determine whether or not a project will have any adverse impact on the environment.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

A report produced following an EIA/ Environmental Impact Study. It describes the proposed project (location, inputs, activities, technology, products and by-products, etc), environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures/recommendations and any gaps in knowledge.

Environmental Impact Study

A study conducted to determine the possible environmental impacts of a proposed project and measures to mitigate their effects

Eutrophication A state in which a water body has an overgrowth of Algae, as a result of organic pollution/release of excess nutrients into the water.

Fragile ecosystem Includes but is not limited to wetlands, river banks and lakeshores.

InspectionA systematic, documented, planned or unplanned evaluation carried out by an inspector to assess whether the provisions of the National Environment Act are being complied with.

Lead Agency Ministry, department, parastatal agency, Local government governments or Public Officer.

SustainableDevelopment

Development that meets the needs of this generation without compromising the rights of future generations

Wetland

Area permanently or seasonally flooded by water where plants and animals have become adopted.



APPENDIX i: NEMA ORGANOGRAM



APPENDIX ii: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

S/N Document Information Retrieved

1. Quarterly and Annual Consolidated Work Plans for the period from FY 2008/09 to FY 2010/12. NEMA’s planned outputs

2. Quarterly and Annual performance Reports for the period from FY 2008/09 to FY 2010/11 NEMA’s actual outputs

3. The National Environment Act Chapter 153. NEMA’s mandate, Key Players and their roles, plus general processes.

4. The Budget Estimates and Final Accounts for FY 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11. Amount and Sources of Funds received

5. NEMA Strategic Plan 2009/2010- 2013/2014. NEMA’s Mission, Vision and Strategic Objectives

6. The Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2010. NEMA’s Performance

7. The National Environment (Wetlands) River Bank and Lake Shores Management Regulations, 2000. Activities restricted/ prohibited in wetlands

8. The National Environment (standards for discharge of effluent on Land or Water) Regulations.

Criteria for facility compliance with regard to effluent discharge

9. The National Environment (Audit) Regulations No 12 of 2006. Process for review of environmental audits.

10. The National Environment (Control of Smoking in Public Places) Regulations SI No 12 of 2004.

Criteria regarding smoking restrictions and regulating standards

11. The Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998 Processes for EIA and EIA review

12. The National Environment(Waste Management) Regulations SI 153-2

Processes for Pollution License Application, and proper waste management practices

11. Guidelines for Environmental Inspectors, 1999 Guidelines applied and followed by environmental inspectors.

12. The Investment Code Act, 2010. Conditions of issuance of Investment License to investors.

13. The Uganda Constitution, 1995 Duties of Citizens in Environmental Management.

14. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2010 Procedures followed by the public to report environmental crime to NEMA.

14. Minutes of the TC/PL’s meetings To ascertain when and how many times the TC/PL sat, and the date of approval of PL applications

15. PCE Field Inspection report, June 2010 Activities, findings and recommendations.



APPENDIX iii: INTERVIEWS CONDUCTEDS/N Person(s) Interviewed Main purpose/Subject of the Interview(s)

1. The Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director, NEMA

To obtain an overview of NEMA’s mandate, operations, the EPF, Environmental management activities, coordination with stakeholders and challenges

2. Directors of NEMA’s 4 departments To obtain key departmental functions, activities, processes, major stakeholders and challenges

3. Senior Legal Counsel, NEMA To obtain key functions of the legal office, activities, processes, major stakeholders, and challenges faced. Status of cases handled.

4. Senior Environment Inspector, NEMA To obtain key, activities, processes, major stakeholders, and challenges faced in carrying out inspections and reviewing environmental audits.

5. Natural Resources Mgt. Specialist (Soil and Land Use), NEMA Land use planning, restoration of fragile ecosystems and challenges.

6. Senior Environmental Information Systems Specialist Environmental Information systems management

6. Environmental Audits and Monitoring Officer, NEMA Activities, success and challenges

7. Human Resources Manager, NEMA Capacity Building of staff and Human resource strategy.

8. Asst. EPF Commander, NEMA Activities, coordination with NEMA and challenges. Status on cases of environmental crime.

9. Environmental Impact Assessment Coordinator, NEMA EIA review and approval process, risks and challenges.

10. Head of Procurement Procurement activities and outputs and challenges faced.

11. Public Relations Officer, NEMA Training and sensitization of media houses and challenges faced.

12. Receptionist, NEMA Process of handling complaints and relationship with the public

13. Registry officer, NEMA Record keeping

14. Commissioner for Wetlands, Ministry of Water and Environment,

To obtain information about status of wetlands; gazettement and boundary demarcation, and coordination aspects with NEMA.

15.Principal Wetlands Officer, Wetlands Department, Ministry of Water and Environment

To obtain information about status of wetlands; gazettement and boundary demarcation and coordination aspects with NEMA.

16.Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) of Jinja, Gulu, Mbale, Buliisa, Soroti, Wakiso, Mukono and Kabale, Bushenyi, Buhweju Districts.

To ascertain whether districts supported by NEMA and major environmental challenges their districts face.

17.

Environment Officers/Officers in charge at Mbale Soap Works, Leather Industries Uganda (LIU), Greenfields Fish Factory, Nile Agro, Mukwano Group of Industries, Britannia Allied Industries, Nile Breweries and Sky Fat Tannery.

To establish key environmental aspects in the facility, levels of compliance and extent of coordination with NEMA.

18.

District/ Municipal/Division Environment Officers of Kampala, Jinja, Gulu, Mbale, Buliisa, Soroti, Wakiso, Rakai, Bushenyi, Mukono and Kabale Districts.

To establish their major functions, the state of the environment in the district/ major environmental issues, extent of coordination with NEMA, functionality of DECs and LECs, and challenges faced in day-to-day operations.

19.District Planners: Kampala, Jinja, Gulu, Mbale, Buliisa, Soroti, Wakiso, Mukono and Kabale, Buhweju

To determine extent of mainstreaming of environmental activities in district plans and budgets.

20.

Officials in health facilities visited i.e. Mulago Hospital, Mengo Hospital, Nsambya Hospital, Kibuli Hospital, Entebbe Grade B Hospital, Mukono Municipal Council Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, Nagalama, Jinja Referral Hospital, Bugembe Health Centre IV, Mbale Referral Hospital, Mbale Municipal Health Centre II, Gulu Referral Hospital and Gulu Independent Hospital

To determine the waste management practices at the health facilities, and whether they received any visits from NEMA

21.Selected complainants who registered complaints to the Authority; on Noise pollution, waste management and wetlands.

To determine levels of satisfaction with the action taken by NEMA on complaints it received from the public and the levels of satisfaction of the complainants.



APPENDIX iv: COMPLAINANTS DATA COLLECTION FORM

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PERSONS WHO REGISTERED COMPLAINTS WITH NEMA

Full Name: Physical address:

Mobile Phone No: Nature of Complaint:

E-mail:

Date of Interview: Interviewer:

IntroductionGood Afternoon/Good Evening (Sir/Madame/Dr, etc); My Name is (callers Name). I am calling from the OAG. OAG is a government Agency that carries out Audit on all Government Ministries, Depts., and Agencies; to ensure that they are accountable.

OAG is carrying out a Value for Money Audit on NEMA. And as part of this Audit, we would like to know how the public feels about the way NEMA handles complaints on environmental issues. This Audit will help NEMA to improve its performance in handling complaints from the public. (Note; Interviewer to request for Interviewees time and acceptance to be interviewed)

Questions Response

1. When did you first lodge a complaint with NEMA?

2. How were you helped?

3. How long did NEMA take to respond to your complaint?

4. Was your problem solved?

5. Did you report this problem to any other person before reporting it to NEMA and where you helped?

6. Generally, how do you feel about the help given to you by NEMA? Were you; Very Satisfied, Satisfied, or fairly satisfied or Not Satisfied. Why?

Concluding remarks: thank you Sir/Madam for taking time to talk to us.

APPENDIX v: FIELD SITES VISITEDS/N HEALTH FACILITY S/N WETLANDS/FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS1. Mulago Hospital 1 Kinawataka Wetland from Banda, Kireka up to Butabika2. Mengo Hospital 2 Lubigi Wetland, along Northern by-pass up to Naalya3. Nsambya Hospital 3. Nakivubo Wetland4. Kibuli Hospital 4. River Bukora, Rakai District5. Entebbe Grade B Hospital 5. Kyeirungu Wetland, Buhweju District6. Mukono Municipal Council Hospital 6 Portbell Landing site, Lake Victoria Shores7. St. Francis Hospital, Nagalama 7. Namatala Wetland, Mbale District8. Jinja Referral Hospital 8. Loco Village Wetland, (Jinja District)9. Bugembe Health Centre IV 9. Kirinya Wetland, Walukuba, Masese, Jinja District10. Mbale Referral Hospital11. Mbale Municipal Health Centre II12. Gulu Referral Hospital13. Gulu Independent Hospital

S/N INDUSTRIES/FACILITIES1. MM Steel Industries Ltd, Masese, Jinja 6. Leather Industries Uganda (LIU)2. Skyfat Tannery, Jinja 7. Mukwano Industries Limited, Kampala3. Rebourn Industries, Masese, Jinja 8. Britannia Industries, Kampala

4. Mbale Soap Works, Mbale District 9. Nile Breweries Limited, Jinja

5 Nile Agro Industries, Jinja 10. Greenfields Fish factory



APPENDIX vi: LIST OF MAJOR LEAD AGENCIESSN. LEAD AGENCY

1 Ministry of Local Government

2 National Forestry Authority (NFA)

3 Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment

4 Department of Occupational Health, Ministry of Labour, Gender and Social Development

5 Environmental Health Division, Ministry of Health

6 National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)

7 Uganda Investment Authority (UIA)

8 Ministry of Education and Sports

9 Water Resources Management Department, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment

10 Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA)

11 Planning Unit - Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)

12 First Parliamentary Council, Ministry of Justice

13 Uganda Police, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters

14 Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MOFPED)

15 National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Secretariat

16 Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) Secretariat

17 Department of Surveys and Mapping, Ministry of Water, Land and Environment

18 Department of Physical Planning, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment

19 Department of Petroleum Supplies, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

20 Department of Energy Resources, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

21 Department of Geological Surveys and Mines, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

22 Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

APPENDIX vii: SCHEDULE THREE OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 1998

Fees payable of project briefs and environmental impact assessment under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 37.

1. Where the total value of the project does not exceed Shs. 50,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 250,000/=;

2. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 50,000,000/= but does not exceed Shs.100,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 500,000/=.

3. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 100,000,000/= but does not exceed Shs. 250,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 750,000/=;

4. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 250,000,000/= but does not exceed Shs. 500,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 1,000,000/=;

5. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 500,000,000/= but does not exceed Shs. 1,000,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 1,250,000/=;

6. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 1,000,000,000/= but does not exceed Shs. 5,000,000,000/= the amount payable shall be Shs. 2,000,000/=; and

7. Where the total value of the project is more than Shs. 5,000,000,000/=, the amount payable shall be 0.1% of the total value of the project.

Source: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998.



APPENDIX viii: UNCOLLECTED EIA FEES ON SAMPLED EIAS

SN EIA NO. DEVELOPER PROJECT

NAMEAMOUNT PAYABLE

AMOUNT ASSESSED

UNDER/OVER ASSESSMENT

ACTUAL PAID OUTSTANDING

1 3888 Hadrich Filling Station

Proposed Fuel Service Station 500,000 500,000 0

500,000 -

2 3868 Abisha Steel Industries Ltd

Abisha Steel Rolling Mill 1,250,000 1,250,000 0

1,250,000 -

3 4066 UMEME Ltd

Kitante Sub-station- Kampala North Interconnector

250,000 1,250,000 -1,000,000 250,000

1,000,000

4 4122 Viral Lubricants Ltd

Blending of Automobile Industrial Lubricants and Grease Plant

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 -

1,250,000

5 4119Mineral Services Limited (MSL) Logistics

Butiaba Construction Basecamp Laydown Area

750,000 750,000 0 750,000

-

6 4217 Grapes Construction Ltd.

Proposed Shopping and Hotel Facility

45,000,000 45,000,000 0 8,000,000

37,000,000

7 4231 James Tumusiime Igongo Country Hotel 1,250,000 1,250,000 0

- 1,250,000

8 4013 Jaclid Petroleum Uganda Ltd

Jaclid Service Station (Soroti Retail Outlet)

750,000 750,000 0 750,000

-

9 3757Tirupati Development (U) Ltd

Proposed Tirupati Business Park

10,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000

-

10 3827 NHCC Ltd

Development of Housing Estate (Naalya Pride Housing Estate)

34,000,000 34,000,000 0 34,000,000

-

11 4008 M/S Alarm GroupProposed Sponge Iron Plant

39,491,000 49,082,740 -9,591,740 44,557,000

4,525,740

12 3674 Mr. Byaruhanga Augustine

Industrial warehouses at Kyambogo

1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,250,000

(250,000)

13 3761 M/S Sure Telecon (U) Ltd

The Proposed Sure Telecom Base Tranceiver Station

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-

14 3942Consumer distributors(Africa) Ltd

Shopping mall & condominium

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 1,250,000

-

15 4250 Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd

Roof base Transceiver station- 4250 (SITE ID: MDKP 1103)

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-



16 3961 Jade Gas Uganda Limited Jade Gas Depot 2,000,000 2,000,000 0

2,000,000 -

17 4025 Petrocity Enterprises (U) Ltd

The Proposed Petrocity Kigungu Filling Station

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-

18 4091 Canaanze Construction Ltd.

The Proposed Canaan Villas 2,000,000 2,000,000 0

2,000,000 -

19 4077 Red Chilli Hideaway Ltd

Proposed Red Chilli Lodge and Campsite

2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000

-

20 4200Harris international Limited

Beverage & Food processing plant

1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,250,000

(250,000)

21 3970 Detroit Dev’t Ltd Detroit service station 250,000 250,000 0

250,000 -

22 3943 M/S Rock Global Oils (U) Ltd

The Proposed Rock Gulu Fuel Service Station

750,000 750,000 0 750,000

-

23 4212 M/S Building Majesties Ltd

The Proposed Stone Quarry and Processing Plant at Kiganda, Mubende

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 1,250,000

-

24 4167 M/S DON Uganda Ltd

Proposed Mubende DON Fuel Station

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-

25 4164 M/S Lydia Home Textiles (U) Ltd

The Proposed Textiles Garmnts Manufacturing Factory

1,250,000 1,000,000 250,000 1,000,000

-

26 3871 M/S Euralumin Ltd The Proposed Warehouses 1,250,000 1,250,000 0

1,250,000 -

27 4002 Lujo investments Ltd

Lujo stone and concrete processing plant

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-

28 2509 Pearl Engineering Company Ltd

Diesel storage Facility 250,000 250,000 0

250,000 -

29 3594Tirupati development Uganda Ltd

Tirupati Mazima shopping mall

1,250,000 5,200,000 -3,950,000 5,200,000

-

30 3785 Kikonyongo Investments Ltd

Vechicle parking yard 1,000,000 1,000,000 0

1,000,000 -

31 3839 Kalule Godfrey

The Proposed Revamp of Kisanje Fuel Filling Station

500,000 500,000 0 500,000

-



32 3742 M/S Megha Industries Ltd

Proposed Warehouses 750,000 750,000 0

750,000 -

33 3784Bereket Construction Co. Ltd

Proposed Bereket Construction Stone Quarry

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 1,250,000

-

34 2325 M/S Meja Projects Ltd

Proposed Development of Ethel Apartments

2,000,000 2,000,000 0 -

2,000,000

35 2124 Wamara EdwardDev’t of Ape recreation centre

250,000 250,000 0 -

250,000

36 2381 Royal Kobs Enterprises

Royal Kobs iganga main street service station

750,000 750,000 0 750,000

-

37 2201 Namadhoa Moses Namadhoa service station 500,000 500,000 0

500,000 -

38 4073M/S Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited

The Proposed Construction of a new Ethanol and Effluent Treatment Plant

5,300,000 5,300,000 0 5,300,000

-

39 2477 Prime Petroleum Co. Ltd

The Proposed Prime Fuel Service Station

500,000 500,000 0 250,000

250,000

40 3672 M/S Airtel (U) LtdThe Proposed Naalya Base Station

500,000 500,000 0 -

500,000

41 2331M/S Jomayi Property Consultants

Proposed Jomayi Housing Estate at Bwefulumya Villa, Namawojjolo Parish, Nama Sub-county, Mukono

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 -

1,250,000

42 2176 Uganda cranes coffee Ltd

Soluble coffee processing plant

66,000,000 66,000,000 0 -

66,000,000

43 2196 Paramount Dairies Ltd

Proposed Dairy Processing Plant

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 -

1,250,000

44 2261 Busoga Forestry Co. Ltd

Proposed pole Treatment Plant and Kara Sawmill

1,250,000 1,250,000 0 -

1,250,000

45 3819 Cooper motors corporation (U) Ltd

Proposed Extension to Ford Service Centre

750,000 1,000,000 -250,000 1,000,000

-

TOTAL 236,291,000 248,832,740 -12,541,740 131,557,000 117,275,740



APPENDIX ix: DIRECT PURCHASE OF TREE SEEDLINGS

S/N Date Recipient VR. Amount (SHS) Seedlings (SHS)

1 14-Dec-09 NABAASA HERBERT 33,160,000 27,000,000

2 26-Aug-10 NABAASA HERBERT 34,540,000 31,532,500

3 13-Jan-10 NABAASA HERBERT 36,166,000 33,660,000

4 18-Mar-10 NABAASA HERBERT 36,480,000 33,485,000

5 28-Sep-11 NABAASA HERBERT 38,580,000 33,500,000

6 11-Dec-09 NABAASA HERBERT 39,860,000 34,500,000



9 12-Jun-12 NABAASA HERBERT 44,890,000 27,690,000

10 25-May -10 NABAASA HERBERT 29,400,000 24,637,000


12 13-Oct-11 NABAASA HERBERT 38,580,000 33,500,000

13 26-Aug-11 NABAASA HERBERT 47,335,000 38,305,000

Total 506,778,000 418,939,500



APPENDIX x: OUTSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FEES AS AT 30TH NOVEMBER, 2012

Customer List No. Name Balance

FM-C00002 Nile Breweries Ltd 14,636,250.00

FM-C00004 Vision Africa 250,000.00

FM-C00006 Ionic Builders Ltd. 750,000.00

FM-C00008 Milling Is Us 1,250,000.00

FM-C00009 Development Finance Company Group 2,000,000.00

FM-C00011 Hima Cement Limited 1,000,000.00

FM-C00014 Ms. Nakato Edith 500,000.00

FM-C00016 Wimax Base Station-Wandegeya 500,000.00

FM-C00026 MTN Uganda Limited 51,250,000.00

FM-C00048 Nile Agro Industries 750,000.00

FM-C00059 Tullow Uganda Pty Ltd 200,294.00

FM-C00067 Kitiko Fresh Foods Market 11,395,000.00

FM-C00079 Petrocity Enterprises (U) Ltd 4,750,000.00

FM-C00087 Mukama & Family Co. Ltd 500,000.00

FM-C00088 Krima Stone Crusher (U) Ltd 500,000.00

FM-C00089 Neptune Petroleum (U) Ltd 6,900,000.00

FM-C00099 Eunice Busingye 250,000.00

FM-C00102 Gallan Petroleum Limited 500,000.00

FM-C00103 Uganda Prisons Hq., Kampala 1,250,000.00

FM-C00117 Fr. Tonino Pasolini, MCCJ 500,000.00

FM-C00123 Zarnack Holdings 1,000,000.00

FM-C00124 Jacobsen Electro AS 65,079,800.00

FM-C00140 Orange Uganda Limited 10,750,000.00

FM-C00161 Airtel Uganda Limited 34,750,000.00

FM-C00195 Modern Developments Ltd 11,675,000.00

FM-C00214 M/s Byaruhanga Augustine 750,000.00

FM-C00220 M/s Bamus Holdings Limited 4,000,000.00

FM-C00224 Sure Telecom Uganda Limited 7,750,000.00

FM-C00258 Rafiki Trading Co. Ltd 2,500,000.00

FM-C00284 Airtel Uganda Limited 750,000.00

FM-C00285 Way Forwarders & Dev’t Ltd 1,000,000.00

FM-C00286 Airtel Uganda Limited 1,500,000.00

FM-C00287 MTN Uganda Limited 1,250,000.00

FM-C00296 Mutoola Resort & Camping Site 750,000.00

FM-C00297 Elextro-Maxx (U) Limited 71,917,877.00

FM-C00305 Vero Foods Processing Ind. Ltd 2,000,000.00

FM-C00307 Power Link Electro House 2,000,000.00

FM-C00311 John Ssebalamu 250,000.00

FM-C00312 DON Uganda Limted 500,000.00

FM-C00316 Ms. Elizabeth Muwanguzi Mabisi 500,000.00

FM-C00319 Semanga Hood 1,000,000.00

FM-C00321 Mahmud Bhnwani 1,250,000.00

FM-C00324 Iran-Uganda Trade Investment 8,365,000.00

FM-C00329 Coil Ltd 1,000,000.00

FM-C00335 Henvale Dev’t Uganda Limited, 1,250,000.00

FM-C00338 Mr. Mahmud Bharwani 1,250,000.00

FM-C00344 Bunyonyi Wildlife Island 1,000,000.00

FM-C00349 Entebbe Municipal Council 500,000.00

FM-C00350 Shell Uganda Limited 250,000.00

FM-C00354 Henley Property Dev’t Limited, 5,000,000.00

FM-C00363 Hared Petroleum Limited 1,750,000.00

FM-C00367 Aloe Cure Uganda Limited 7,800,000.00

FM-C00370 Coil Limited 1,000,000.00



FM-C00371 Ug. Nat. Bureau of Standards 1,800,000.00

FM-C00373 Olympic Petroleum (U) Ltd 1,000,000.00

FM-C00384 Euroalumin Limited 1,250,000.00

FM-C00385 Ug. National Roads Authority 210,218,053.00

FM-C00389 Tullow Ug. Operations Pty Ltd 1,071,342.00

FM-C00391 Global Engineering Solutions 1,000,000.00

FM-C00392 The Benina Foundation 1,250,000.00

FM-C00394 Mr. Musoke Stephen 250,000.00

FM-C00400 Rock Global oils (U) Ltd 1,250,000.00

FM-C00402 Contipax Textiles Limited 250,000.00

FM-C00408 Mr. Peter Twongirwe, 250,000.00

FM-C00410 Alam Group of Companies 10,000,000.00

FM-C00422 Min. of Works & Transport 21,825,900.00

FM-C00426 GRAPHIC SYSTEMS LTD 2,000,000.00

FM-C00427 Detroit Development Ltd 250,000.00

FM-C00430 Ministry of Health 99,871,576.00

FM-C00431 Ministry of Works & Transport 10,000,000.00

FM-C00433 Coco Resort Beach 500,000.00

FM-C00441 Doc-T Uganda Limited, 1,250,000.00

FM-C00457 Jacobsen Elektro AS, 245,530,080.00

FM-C00459 Transann Limited 2,000,000.00

FM-C00460 IGAD 300,000.00

FM-C00461 Nilkanith Investments Limited 500,000.00

FM-C00465 Viva Safaris Resort 500,000.00

FM-C00469 Mulago Hospital Complex 47,300,522.00

FM-C00472 Sure Telcom Uganda Limited 500,000.00

FM-C00474 Office of the Prime Minister 7,316,833.00

FM-C00479 Uganda Revenue Authority 1,000,000.00

FM-C00482 Turkish Light Academy 1,250,000.00

FM-C00486 National Chamber of Commerce 2,000,000.00

FM-C00491 Mr. Twongyerwe Peter 250,000.00

FM-C00492 Bliss Enterprises (U) Limited 750,000.00

FM-C00494 All Saints Cathedral, Nakasero 26,194,066.00

FM-C00505 First Mining Company Ltd 2,750,000.00

FM-C00509 Viral Lubricants Uganda Ltd 1,250,000.00

FM-C00513 Lubilia Kawembe Hydro Ltd 22,394,390.00

FM-C00525 Greenewus Energy Africa Ltd 31,373,375.00

FM-C00528 Warid Telcom Uganda Limited 1,000,000.00

FM-C00529 Ministry of Local Gov’t., 11,000,000.00

FM-C00533 Reynold Construction Co.Ltd 22,809,600.00

FM-C00545 Hariss International Ltd., 4,250,000.00

FM-C00546 Prince Petroleum Limited 750,000.00

FM-C00547 MM United Investors Ltd 500,000.00

FM-C00548 Byansi Energy 250,000.00

FM-C00553 VSHydro (Pvt) Limited, 37,075,800.00

FM-C00554 Nice House of Plastics Ltd 2,000,000.00

FM-C00558 Rift Valley Railways & Muhindo 12,331,450.00

FM-C00559 Total E&P Uganda 74,721,842.00

FM-C00560 Mr. Luwago Benedicto 250,000.00

FM-C00561 Quality Steel Industries Ltd., 1,000,000.00

FM-C00562 SBI International Holdings 129,600,000.00

FM-C00563 Teng Piny Farming Enterprises 1,000,000.00

FM-C00566 Mr. Gasana Emmanuel 1,250,000.00

FM-C00570 Agaba. B.G. Petroleum Services 500,000.00

FM-C00573 Logic Real Estate Ltd 2,000,000.00

FM-C00574 Omega Construction Ltd 250,000.00

FM-C00575 Byansi Roofings Company Ltd 1,000,000.00



FM-C00578 Uganda Investment Authority 26,811,000.00

FM-C00581 The Rangelands Limited 1,250,000.00

FM-C00582 Bisa Enterprises Ltd., 500,000.00

FM-C00583 MM United Investors Ltd., 500,000.00

FM-C00584 Halal Meat Co. Ltd., 15,000,000.00

FM-C00585 Butama Hydro-Electricity Co. 58,963,336.00

FM-C00586 Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd., 12,375,000.00

FM-C00593 Temgumi Farm Ltd 750,000.00

FM-C00594 Prime Petroleum Company Ltd 750,000.00

FM-C00600 KKT Plaza Limited, 2,000,000.00

FM-C00607 Ministry of Defence 14,000,000.00

FM-C00610 Palema Crown Hote Ltd., 1,250,000.00

FM-C00611 Mr. James Sempiga 100,000.00

FM-C00612 Ministry of Energy & Mineral 4,000,000,000.00

FM-C00614 Muhebwa Enterprises Limited, 750,000.00

FM-C00615 J.O.B & Family General 1,000,000.00

FM-C00616 Bakhresa Grain Milling (U) Ltd 7,097,580.00

FM-C00619 Mt. Elgon Coffee Growers Ltd 3,750,000.00

FM-C00620 Hudani Manji Holding Limited 2,000,000.00

GRAND TOTAL 5,562,550,966.00



ANNEX

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE (To Finding 4.4.4)

The table below provides a response to the issues:

(i) SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

Observations by the audit team (issues/query/statements/ recommendation by the audit team)

Detailed explanatory statement/notes Reference for evidence

The actual numbers of Teachers trained is not indicated.

KATAKWI DISTRICTSchool EE Competitions launched Usuk Girls Primary School Report available

NAMUTUMBA DISTRICTPlanned: 40Trained: 45 Teachers from Namutumba District were trained in EE/ESD Expenditure: Ugx 4,000,000

§ Activity report is availableThe venue was; Teachers’

Resource Centre ( Namutumba Primary School)

§ 7th to 9th May 2008

Isngiro District

NAKASEKE DISTRICTPlanned: 40Trained: 48 educators trainedExpenditure: Ugx 3,750,000

§ Report§ Kiwoko Church of Uganda

Primary School - Nakaseke§ 27th to 29th July 2009

IBANDA DISTRICT Planned: 40Trained: 48Expenditure: Ugx 4,671,500

§ Activity Report§ Teachers’ resource centre

(Ibanda Integrated P/School)§ 14th to 16th April 2010

ISINGIRO DISTRICTPlanned: 40Trained: 43 Educators trainedExpenditure: Ugx 4,540,000

§ Activity Report§ Citizens Primary School –

Kaberebere§ 11th to 13th May 2010

MITYANA DISTRICTPlanned: 40Trained: 44 educators trained

§ Activity Report§ Mityana Town School§ 9th to 11th December 2010





SEEC in Katakwi District were concluded this period. (25) schools/educational institutions participated and 10 schools competed.

School Environmental Education Competition (SEEC).This activity took Ug. Shs. 5,000,000/=) Five Million.

üThis activity: encourages learner participation,

üLearners practice what they learn (putting theory into practice

üPractical Environmental restoration projects are put in place &

Public Awareness on environmental issues is created

Expenditure: Ugx 4,349,500

§ Activity Report§ August 2010§ Katakwi District

Headquarters (Apuuton Primary School)

TOT for Eastern Uganda

This was a leadership training course to get champions of EE/ESD who would lead the activity in their respective districts. Participants came from the following districts:(Mbale, Butaleja, Kapchorwa, Kween, Iganga, Kibuku, Tororo)

Planed: 25 Trained: 30 educators were trained

Expenditure: 9,935,000 (Note regional trainings had few participants but with more money spent as compared to district trainings due to the costs of night allowances and transport refund for the participants) However, the regional trainings focused on district leaders like School inspectors, Environment Officers, CCTs, Head Teachers and leaders of NGOs as compared to the district trainings which participants were teachers.

§ Activity Report§ 12th to 13th August 2010§ Green Gardens Hotel –Mbale





LYANTONDE DISTRICTPlanned: 4043 educators were trained

§ Activity Report§ 27th to 29th January 2011§ Lyantonde Primary School

This was a leadership training course to get champions of EE/ESD who would lead the activity in their respective districts. Participants came from the following districts:Kitgum, Lira, Gulu, Amuru, Nwoya, Pader, Kole

TOT FOR NORTHERN UGANDA (Kitgum, Gulu, Nwoya, Amuru, Kole, and Lira Planned: 20Trained 25 district officialsExpenditure: 9,900,000

§ Activity Report§ 19th to 20th October 2011§ Gracious Palace Hotel - Lira

1) Kole, Oyam and Apac Districts.

2) In service teachers of Loro Core PTC

KOLE, OYAM AND APAC DISTRICTS:Three districts of Kole, Apac & Oyam were including the in-service tutors of Loro Core PTC covered.

Planned: 40Trained: 55 Educators were trained. Expenditure: 8,425,000

§ Activity Report§ 8th to 9th December 2011§ Loro Core PTC



(ii) PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS

Financial Years Venue of training Date/Time

Planned No. of

participants

Actual No. of participants

1. West Ankole Mothers’ Union - Rushere (Kiruhura)

2. Teachers’ Resource Centre (Namutumba Primary School) 7th to 9th May 2008 45 40

2009/10

3. Kiwoko Church of Uganda P/School (Nakaseke) 27th to 29th July 2009 40 48

4. Teachers’ resource centre (Ibanda Integrated P/School) 14th to 16th April 2010 46 48

5. Citizens Primary School – Kaberebere (Isingiro) 11th to 13th May 2010 44 40

2010/11

6. Mityana Town School 9th to 11th December 2010 45 40

7. Green Gardens Hotel Mbale 12th to 13th August 2010 25 30

8. Lyantonde Primary School 27th to 29th January 2011 43 43

2011/12

9. Gracious Palace Hotel (Lira) 19th to 20th October 2011 19 25

10. Loro Core PTC (Oyam) 8th to 9th December 2011 40 55

(iii) ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION WORKSHOPS IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS

Financial Years Venue of training Time

Expected No. of

participants


2008/09

Hotel Equatorial Kampala 17th April 2008 30 40

Namirembe Guest House 14th August 2008 40 36

Lubowa Gardens (Lweza) ESD into University Programmes 29th June 2009 50 51

2009/10

Busitema University main campus (Mainstreaming ESD) 8th to 9th July 2009 50 60

Imperial Royale Hotel; Kampala (Greater Kampala (RCE) 19th of March 2010 50 42

Gulu University Main Campus (Main streaming (ESD) 30th to 31st March 2010 30 30

Greater Masaka RCE(Masaka Catholic Social Centre – (Bbwala

Hill) 13th April 2010 55 52

2010/11

Busitema University Main Campus (RCE) 7TH December 2010 60 50

Gulu University ; formation of RCE 13TH January 2011 40 30



(iv) OTHER TRAINING WORKSHOPS

1. (Oil and gas sensitization meetings)

Financial Year Venue of training Date

Expected No. of

participants


2010/11

Arua, Nebbi, Nwoya, Hoima, Buliisa, Ntoroko, Kanungu, Rukungiri and Bundibugyo.

31st January - 17th February, 2011

388

324

Individual training reports available for verification

2. Municipal Solid Waste Composting /CDM Sensitization meetings

2010/2011

Arua, Gulu, Lira, Soroti, Mbale, Busia, Tororo, Jinja, Mukono, Entebbe, Hoima, Mityana, Kabale, Kasese, Mbarara, and Fort Portal Municipalities.

29th March to 5th April 2011 680 participants 402 participants (Report

available)



P.O. Box 7083, Kampala. Tel. +256 414 344 340 Fax. +256 414 345 674

E-mail: [email protected]


Date post:	17-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times