Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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]
T H E R E P U B L I C O F U G A N D A
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
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
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
VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
1VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
CHA
PTER
ON
EC
HA
PTE
R O
NE
1
2VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
3VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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).
4VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
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.
5VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL5
CHA
PTER
TW
OC
HA
PTE
R T
WO
2
6VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
7VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
CHA
PTER
TH
REE
CH
AP
TER
TH
RE
E
3
8VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
9VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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).
10VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
11VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
12VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
13VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
CHA
PTER
FO
UR
CH
AP
TER
FO
UR
4
14VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
15VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
16VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
17VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
18VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
19VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(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.
Management Response:
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.
20VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
Source: OAG Analysis
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
Source: OAG Analysis
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.
21VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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:
22VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
23VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
24VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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:
25VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
26VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
27VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
28VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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
29VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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:
30VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
31VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Management Response:
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:
32VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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:
33VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
Source: OAG Analysis
34VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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)
35VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(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
Source: OAG Analysis
17 52nd Meeting of the Board of Directors
36VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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)
·
37VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 Response:
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)
38VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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)
39VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance reports and final accounts.
Management Response:
(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.
40VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance reports and final accounts.
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)
41VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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:
42VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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.
43VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 Response:
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
44VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
45VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
Source: OAG Analysis
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.
46VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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
Source: NEMA AWP&Bs, Performance reports and final accounts.
47VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
48VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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.
49VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
50VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Management Response:
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.
51VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
Management Response:
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
52VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR 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.
53VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
APPENDIX i: NEMA ORGANOGRAM
54VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
55VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
56VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
57VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
58VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
-
59VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
-
60VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
61VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
7 9-Mar-10 NABAASA HERBERT 40,102,000 37,500,000
8 6-Mar-12 NABAASA HERBERT 43,850,000 31,815,000
9 12-Jun-12 NABAASA HERBERT 44,890,000 27,690,000
10 25-May -10 NABAASA HERBERT 29,400,000 24,637,000
11 3-Mar-12 NABAASA HERBERT 43,835,000 31,815,000
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
62VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
63VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
64VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
65VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
66VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Observations by the audit team (issues/query/statements/ recommendation by the audit team)
Detailed explanatory statement/notes Reference for evidence
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
67VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Observations by the audit team (issues/query/statements/ recommendation by the audit team)
Detailed explanatory statement/notes Reference for evidence
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
68VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(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
Actual 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
69VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(iv) OTHER TRAINING WORKSHOPS
1. (Oil and gas sensitization meetings)
Financial Year Venue of training Date
Expected No. of
participants
Actual 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)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
T H E R E P U B L I C O F U G A N D A
P.O. Box 7083, Kampala. Tel. +256 414 344 340 Fax. +256 414 345 674
E-mail: [email protected]
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL