UGANDA CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (COBS) SUPPORT PROJECT
Project Final Evaluation
September 2002
Submitted by:
Frederick Sowers, Ph.D., Team Leader
Monica Kapiriri
Frank Muhereza
Is a collaborative initiative between the
United States Agency for International Development
And the
Government of Uganda
The final evaluation is of the
COBS Support Project institutional contractor:
ARD, Inc.
Contract Number OUT-LAG-I-800-99-00013-00,
Task Order 800
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
Preface v
Executive Summary E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 COBS Support Project Goals 2
1.2 Evaluation Approach and Methodology 2
1.3 The Evaluation Team 3
1.4 Overview 4
2.0 RM1: RATIONALIZING MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN PAs 6
2.1 Problem Statement 6
2.2 Findings and Analysis 7
2.2.1 Management planning and preparation of GMPs 7
2.2.2 Management implementation 9
2.2.3 Business planning and policy 11
2.3 Conclusions 12
2.4 Recommendations 12
3.0 RM2: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN BIODIVERSE
LANDSCAPES/DISTRICTS 14
3.1 Problem Statement 14
3.2 Findings and Analysis: DEAP 15
3.2.1 Review and streamline the DEAP process 15
3.2.2 DEAPs developed in four Districts 16
3.2.3 EAP implementation 19
3.3 Conclusions: DEAP Planning and Implementation 23
3.4 Recommendations: DEAP Planning and Implementation 24
4.0 RM3: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND CAPACITY-BUILDING: ENVIRONMENTAL 
ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 26
4.1 Problem Statement 26
4.2 Findings and Analysis 26
4.2.1 Formal EA/EIA support activities 27
4.2.2 Environmental management public awareness 28
4.2.3 Other EA/EIA support activities 30
4.2.4 Public information and education 31
4.3 Conclusions 32
4.4 Recommendations 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report ii
5.0 RM4: SPECIAL BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 34
5.1 Special Activities Supported 34
5.2 ECOTRUST and the COBS Support Project 34
5.2.1 Problem statement 34
5.2.2 Findings and analysis 35
5.3 Conclusions 36
5.4 Recommendations 36
6.0 RM 5: ACTIVITY COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION 38
6.1 Problem Statement 38
6.2 Findings and Analysis 38
6.2.1 Project management unit and organization 38
6.2.2 USAID strategic refocusing: Implications for the COBS Support Project 40
6.3 Conclusions 40
7.0 SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT 42
7.1 Sustainability 42
7.2 Impact 44
8.0 LESSONS LEARNED 47
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED A-1
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED B-1
APPENDIX 3: PFE SCOPE OF WORK C-1
APPENIDX 4: PFE WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE D-1
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AOP Annual operation plan (for a protected area)
APE Action Program for the Environment
ARD–COBS ARD–COBS Support Project
BINP Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
BoT Board of Trustees
CA Cooperative Agreement
CAO Chief Administrative Officer (of District)
CBO Community-based organization
CEMT Center for Environmental Management Training
COBS Conserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Development (USAID SO2 Program)
CoP Chief of Party
CPIs Community Protected Area Institutions
DDP District Development Plan
DEAP District environment action plan
DEO District Environment Officer
DTF District task force
EA/EIA Environmental assessment/Environmental impact assessment
EAP Environment action plan
ECOTRUST Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
EIS Environmental impact statement
ELU Environment Liaison Unit
ENR Environment and natural resources
EPED Environmental Planning and Economic Development ((Project)
EPTA Environmental Planing Technical Advisor
GMP General management plan (for a PA)
GMU Grant Management Unit
GoU Government of the Republic of Uganda
ICDC Integrated Conservation and Development Coordinator (CARE)
IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract
IT Information technology
IUCN World Conservation Union
KCCL Kasese Cobalt Company Limited
LEC Local Environment Committee
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MFCA Murchison Falls Conservation Area
MGNP M’gahinga Gorilla National Park
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Service
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
NGO Nongovernmental organization
PA Protected area
PEAP Parish environment action plan
PFE Project final evaluation
PIE Public information and education
PMA Plan for the Modernization of Africa
PMP Performance monitoring plan
QEPA Queen Elizabeth Protected Area
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report iv
Q“n” “nth” Quarter of ARD–COBS Implementation [Q5 = 1st Quarter of 2001]
RM Results Module
RMNP Rwenzori Mountain National Park
SEAP Subcounty environment action plan
SO Strategic Objective (as in SO2 of USAID’s Uganda Program)
SoW Statement of Work
TA Technical Advisor
TO Task Order
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
UWAPU UWA Planning Unit
WR Wildlife Reserve
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report v
PREFACE
The Uganda Conserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Development (COBS) program continues
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) assistance to the Government of
the Republic of Uganda (GoU) in biodiversity conservation and environmental management.
COBS represents the second strategic objective (SO2) of the USAID Mission to Uganda.
Several aspects of COBS, including the subject of this document, are implemented by ARD,
Inc. (ARD) as the “COBS Support Project” under a 36-month institutional contract issued on 30
September 1999. This contract is Task Order No. 800 under the umbrella USAID–ARD Biodiver￾sity and Sustainable Forestry Indefinite Quantity Contract OUT-LAG-I-800-99-00013-00. A Task
Order (TO) modification was completed in January 2001, which refocused the Project Statement
of Work, and incorporated a budget reduction.
The TO covers support to the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the National Environment Man￾agement Authority, administrative Districts and other government and nongovernment bodies in:
ß Protected areas (PA) planning and management.
ß District environmental planning and management.
ß Capacity-building in environmental assessment and impact assessment.
ß Intersectoral coordination for effective environmental management.
ß Other support activities for biodiversity conservation to be defined as needed.
ß Program management and coordination.
These elements are integrated through a landscape approach to environmental management in
critical ecosystems, and by the theme of biodiversity conservation in and around PAs, linked to
potential economic development in local communities.
The TO is implemented by a Project Management Unit based in Kampala, supported by
ARD’s head office in Burlington, Vermont. CARE–International is the major subcontractor to
ARD under the TO, providing staffing and support to a field-based team through its Uganda
country office. The TO provides funding for an independent external review, the results of
which are presented in this Project final evaluation document.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report E-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Uganda Conserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Development (COBS) Project is a collabora￾tive effort of the Government of the Republic of Uganda and the United States Agency for In￾ternational Development that is broadly assisted through a number of development activities
and projects. The COBS Support Project provides core institutional support to the program
through a technical support contract administered by ARD, Inc., which in turn sub-contracted
with CARE–Uganda to help implement especially field-based activity in four rural Districts.
This document reports the results of a Project Final Evaluation of the three-year $5.2 million
undertaking that began in September 1999 and ended September 30 2002.
The COBS Support Project strengthened the capacity of Ugandan organizations carrying out
activities to achieve the collaborative program’s strategic objective (SO2): Critical ecosystems con￾served to sustain biodiversity and to enhance benefits to society. The effectiveness, impact, and
sustainability of the effort depended primarily on results of long- and short-term technical as￾sistance, training and capacity-building, and limited logistical and material support to a diverse
set of Ugandan government and nongovernmental organizations concerned with improving
conservation and environmental management. The evaluation addresses four major questions:
ß What did the Project achieve?
ß What did it fail to achieve?
ß What is the impact and sustainability of its achievements?
ß What are the key lessons that can be built on?
The latter question is of particular concern to USAID’s new Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP),
which seeks to integrate conservation concerns within an overall objective of expanded sustain￾able economic opportunities for rural sector growth.
What Was Achieved?
Although the field focus was confined to the Western part of the country, the institutional chal￾lenges and scope were national. The limited budget encouraged USAID and ARD–COBS to
adopt an indirect strategy of mobilizing personnel and resources within the key beneficiary or￾ganizations. The Project was largely successful in this regard and, in some areas, remarkable
results were achieved. Table E1 summarizes key institutional changes, ongoing status, and pos￾sible future impacts of COBS Support Project activities.
The two major areas of support for planning and plan implementation focused on (1) rede￾fining the management paradigm for the PA System under the Uganda Wildlife Authority, and
(2) integrating environmental concerns into local government planning and development pro￾grams through improving and mainstreaming the District environment action plan (DEAP)
process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation E-2
Table E1. Summary Matrix of COBS Support Project Results and Impacts
Outcome Ongoing Status and Impact Potential Future Impact
Capacity for National Park
and PA planning institution￾alized
COBS staff absorbed into UWA; plans being
developed autonomously. UWA committed to
the process.
Reduction in dependence and role of donors
increases likelihood of plans being used
successfully.
PA planning process and
dynamic model refined and
adopted
Two plans finalized under new general man￾agement plan system. Planning manual being
updated. Improvements continuing despite
project ending.
Plans are establishing adequate technical
foundation for longer term management and
protection of resources. Donor comfort
level will increase improving funding climate.
Process for ensuring PA
plan implementation put
into place
Annual operation plans incorporated at all
levels and beginning to rationalize management
decision-making. Limited COBS support for
implementation integrated into new approach.
PA managers identifying projects and seeking
funding. Headquarters initiated system-wide
monitoring and oversight.
Sound technical plans, responsive program￾ming, and oversight can be expected to
stabilize PA boundaries, reduce flagrant
abuses, and shift concerns to a higher level.
Stable political context would help attract
tourism revenues that could further drive
the process.
Commitment to environ￾mental planning in rural
landscapes surrounding
areas of critical biodiver￾sity enhanced and institu￾tionalized through the
EAP process.
DEAPs approved in four Districts and sub￾units in southwestern Uganda. Planning manu￾als and methodologies approved and adopted
for Districts and lower levels. Participatory
process involves lower level political institu￾tions and community leaders. Process is being
adopted by other sectors and integrated into
overall local planning process and has become
model for environmental planning nationwide.
Participatory process created a basis for
dialogue and negotiation between govern￾ment and civil society CBOs and NGOs. It
establishes a means for local government to
attract resources toward environmentally
sustainable development activities. Plans
offer a formal channel to link with private
sector incentives for programs like those
proposed under SO7; local awareness and
enthusiasm can contribute to adoption of
improved natural resource management
practices that are offer financial benefits.
Implementation of activi￾ties in support of plans
underway at local levels.
Pilot programs initiated with direct support.
Other COBS and non-COBS (e.g. Africare,
CARE DTC) projects building on accomplish￾ments to implement activities supporting plans.
Local by- laws are being developed and revised.
Fund-raising tools, materials and training to
support plan implementation. Ongoing support
continued under ECOTRUST cooperative
agreement.
Continued movement toward decentralized
governance and finance, coupled with the
mainstreaming of the participatory planning
model suggest that the process can be
strengthened, integrated and applied more
widely.
Procedures for environ￾mental assessment and
review were improved
and adopted.
NEMA is distributing EA manual that incorpo￾rated project contributions. Environment and
environmental review less isolated from other
sectors at District level.
New manuals and training modules give
NEMA means to affect other ministries and
sectors. Future impact depends on further
support to tie together elements of as￾sessment, reporting and monitoring system
that ARD–COBS strengthened.
Local commitment to
environmental review
increased
Comprehensive awareness training coupled
with institutional changes producing initial set
of impact studies. Initial results at field level
indicate populations are playing an active role.
Sustainable awareness raising and educa￾tional activities respond to effective ongo￾ing campaigns but project framework is not
sustainable without a long term institutional
base for such programs. Without this proj￾ect impact can be expected to decline over
time.
ECOTRUST established
as viable local conserva￾tion grant-making organi￾zation
Qualified personnel, financial and administra￾tive systems, and initial USAID cooperative
grant in place. Initial grants producing prom￾ising examples of field level success. Funding is
not diversified and organization is vulnerable
to characterization as USAID project.
Future impact limited by field-level minimal
presence of CBO/NGOs, suggesting need
for local organizational capacity- building.
Achieving organizational mission will require
diversified funding without which ECO￾TRUST will likely play only a role as an SO7
service provider.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation E-3
The evaluation concludes that COBS Support made instrumental contributions that helped
UWA adopt system-wide changes that over time will halt encroachment into PAs, improve eco￾system health, and restore wildlife populations. The evaluation also concludes that the COBS
Support Project interventions engaged District, Subcounty, and Parish local government struc￾tures and involved council members and local populations to define a state-of-the-art DEAP
approach that has been adopted as the national standard and emulated, with varying success, in
non-COBS Districts in other areas of the country. The approach, moreover, has been appreciated
by local government officials and it is serving as a model for planning in other sectors as well as
facilitating the incorporation of environmental concerns into a number of other annual sectoral
plans, especially in forestry and agriculture. The participatory process involving local popula￾tions and Subdistrict institutions has paved the way for implementation of the plans and for the
type of partnerships envisioned under SO7. Preliminary results from COBS pilot Project actions
support this conclusion.
The Project also provided support upon request to the USAID Mission toward achievement
of the COBS strategic objective and its integration with the economic growth SO in crafting the
ISP’s new SO7. The evaluation concludes that this provision for flexibility and mobilization on
demand generally functioned as intended. It was called on mostly to assist the nascent Envi￾ronmental Conservation Trust of Uganda. ECOTRUST, as a COBS SO institution, underwent a
period of prolonged uncertainty in its transformation from USAID/COBS Grants Management
Unit to autonomous Ugandan conservation NGO. COBS Support Project provided essential
technical, managerial, and organizational development support, without which ECOTRUST
might not have survived to meet the next level of challenges in its effort to achieve long-term
sustainability as a national environment, conservation, and sustainable development grant￾making body.
What Was Not Achieved?
In an attempt to enhance tangible impact, COBS Support Project modifications concentrated ef￾forts geographically and emphasized transitioning from planning to plan implementation for
both PAs and the surrounding rural landscapes. As a three-year effort, actual plan implementa￾tion was limited and quite late. Although some continuity will be ensured by carrying forward
certain field activities through other USAID grants, the beneficiaries of the improved planning
process would have further profited from an earlier start and/or more time for implementation.
The project was unable to achieve parallel accomplishments in its efforts to institutionalize
environmental assessment, review, and management. From the outset, USAID’s strategic refo￾cusing of COBS meant that the project’s original results module, directed to establishing a series
of “Environmental Liaison Units” within national level “lead agencies,” was dropped. These
units were to have strengthened the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA)
in its effort have the environmental management provisions of the NES implemented. These
units were closely tied to the EA/EIA goals and thus affected related Project implementation.
Efforts at the national level failed to gain traction and were scaled back following a reduction in
the Project’s budget. Training, awareness, and capacity-building at the field level were well re￾ceived, but the evaluation concludes that these accomplishments have not been securely insti￾tutionalized. Although the project achieved some success in training District officials and local
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation E-4
populations and producing adopted guidelines for one sector, the country is still without a
system of certification for practitioners, of audit and compliance, and of incorporation of envi￾ronmental measures across multiple sectors.
ARD’s “landscape approach” and the intended synergies sought through geographic con￾centration were realized only to a limited degree. This was in part due to UWA insistence, that
the contractor’s primary PA effort be directed to the outlying Murchison Falls National Park,
thus diffusing the intention of bring Districts and neighboring PA management into a common
conceptual and planning frame of reference.
Sustainability of outreach programs was not achieved, since they lack an institutional home
beyond the Project. The Project achieved some success in testing and applying innovative par￾ticipatory approaches in its environmental awareness and management and its public informa￾tion and education campaigns, but their effect will be substantial only if institutionalized and
replicated.
What Is the Impact and Sustainability of the COBS Support Project Achievements?
The evaluation assessed sustainability and impact in terms of beneficiary institutions’ abilities
to carry forward with the necessary financial and human resources to develop and implement
plans capable of orchestrating environmentally positive changes in people’s behaviors and,
hence, in protecting critical ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain.
The team found that the UWA has committed to perennially funding a fully staffed plan￾ning unit, which the evaluation argues is already autonomously applying the system of general
management planning that it jointly developed with COBS support. The system has been
adopted not only for COBS’s PAs, but for the country’s entire PA system. As tourism and UWA
revenues increase over time, the unit can be expected to achieve more independence from do￾nor program support. Also with the project’s support, UWA adopted system-wide use of an￾nual operation plans. This reinforces sustainability by increasing UWA’s efficiency in using
human and material resources. Moreover, annual planning gives the general plans flexibility to
expand or contract on the basis of available funds.
Through NEMA, COBS Support Project engaged local government and its development and
civil society partners to achieve comprehensive planning and, to a large extent, mainstreaming
of environmental concerns in the COBS target Districts of southwestern Uganda. It is clear that
the human resources, both political and technical, within Districts, Subcounties, and Parishes
have embraced a participatory process that connects environment with the overall move toward
decentralization in the country. It is difficult for the team to assess the financial sustainability of
the EAP process since it is so integrally bound with larger issues of District and local finance;
however, financial resources available to Districts are significant and varied. Looking forward,
the integration of environment into the overall District development plans bodes well for sus￾tained financing for program implementation and thus to environmental conservation prac￾tices—even in the heavily populated portions of the region.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation E-5
What Are the “Lessons Learned”?
ß Overall Program coordination is critical to success. For effective partnership and collaboration,
institutional cultures need to be analyzed and any negative implications dealt with early in
the partnership. Monitoring coordination structures such as an extended SO team should be
ensured. A lack of clarity in the Project’s mandate created delays and uncertainty that could
have been avoided by better communication and a formalized structure of setting and af￾firming operating parameters for the Project. Field activities under SO7 will likely involve
groupings of distinct projects, government and nongovernment partners, providers of tech￾nology or services, and entrepreneurs. This complexity suggests that coordinating structures
at several levels will be need to be developed. Clear contractual responsibilities and ap￾proved monitoring plans should underlie efforts to achieve interinstitutional synergies.
ß Focusing on opportunities and not constraints contributed immensely to the Project’s level of suc￾cess. In particular, vision-based planning led to rapid and widespread stakeholder buy-in.
Visioning was used at the subregional level to instill a sense of positive outcome toward
which actors saw the landscape evolving at the conclusion of successful implementation. Ac￾tions then become steps toward this endpoint. SO7 will grapple with similar challenges of lo￾cal land use such as erosion and watershed degradation. Such exercises can be tailored to
multiple levels—from farmer and village organizations to national strategic and policy efforts.
· Building the institutions is key to long-term success. COBS focused on strengthening govern￾ment institutions and planning. With the attention given to achieving higher level (bio￾physical and income) results, institutional development is often seen as an intermediate
process, and is given reduced attention in development efforts. COBS Support Project dem￾onstrated the importance of creating an enabling institutional environment. It showed that
by focusing on core functions, significant change can be engendered with limited resources
and in a relatively short period of time. Sustainable capacity-building activities for envi￾ronment management are difficult to assess, but absent enabling policy, regulatory, and
technical support institutions, private sector initiatives may not achieve intended conserva￾tion objectives. SO7 appears to make limited provision for support to government despite
recognizing the important residual role that only government institutions can play. COBS
Support Project experience would suggest that funding government participation in the
natural resource enterprises and partnerships can both enhance success and build on the re￾cently developed capacities.
ß Avoiding parallel structures helps transfer ownership and makes a real difference. COBS Support
Project’s integrating of project activities into District technical structures can help shield Proj￾ect facilities and resources from pressures for favors by politicians, and prevent them from
disappearing with termination of a project. The buy-in and ownership of PA and local gov￾ernment partners under COBS is a direct outgrowth of encouraging these institutions to di￾rectly implement the program and equipping them with the necessary justifiable resources.
As SO7 puts structures into place, there is a real risk that private extension, NGO develop￾ment, CBO/farmer organizational capacity-building, and technical implementers will create a
labyrinth of organizational complexity in the field. Widespread vesting in the District plan￾ning and oversight can both reduce confusion of responsibility and enhance sustainability.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 1
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Uganda Conserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Development (COBS) Project is a collabora￾tive effort of the Government of the Republic of Uganda (GoU) and the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID). Implementation of the program is anchored in a core
support project, the COBS Support Project. The project is funded through a Task Order (TO)
under the USAID Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry (BIOFOR) Indefinite Quantity Contract
OUT-LAG-I-800-99-00013-00.1
 The technical support contract is administered by ARD, Inc.,
which subcontracted with CARE–Uganda to help especially with field-based activity in four
rural Districts. ARD and CARE unified their efforts under a central Program Management Unit
(PMU). The Project-funded evaluation team worked closely with the PMU to coordinate and
facilitate its activities; however, the evaluation represents a comprehensive, independent, exter￾nal assessment of the Project achievements.
The COBS Support Project is in its final close-out phase, and the recently adopted USAID
Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP), 2002–2007, has replaced the original strategic objective (SO) that
the Project supported. COBS Support Project was implemented under the previous strategic
plan and was the primary mechanism to achieve SO2—Critical ecosystems conserved to sustain
biodiversity and to enhance benefits to society. During the implementation of COBS, USAID’s stra￾tegic focus shifted from institutional capacity-development toward a more private sector
growth and poverty alleviation strategy. Many of the prior SO2 (and SO1) results have been
subsumed under the current strategic plan’s SO7—Expanded sustainable economic opportunities for
rural sector growth.
This report is organized around the five results modules (RMs) that comprise the statement
of work (SoW) of the COBS Support Project. Section 2.0 discusses the findings and analysis re￾lated to the management of biodiversity in protected areas (PAs); Section 3.0 treats the envi￾ronmental planning and management in biodiverse landscapes and Districts; Section 4.0 relates
to capacity-building and institutional support; Section 5.0 presents results for the special biodi￾versity support activities; and finally, Section 6.0 reviews results related to coordination and
administration. Section 7.0 analyzed project results from the perspective of sustainability. The
final section, Section 8.0, summarizes lessons learned. The sections reporting on the core RMs
(Sections 2.0–4.0) provide specific detail; but for the reader wishing a quick overview, each sec￾tion summarizes outputs in an overview table near the top. Sections 7.0 and 8.0, when coupled
with the Executive Summary and the RM summary tables, provide a comprehensive overview
of the Project, from the evaluation team’s perspective.
 
1COBS Support Project is frequently referred to as the “ARD–COBS Project,” a result of the Chief of Party’s (CoP)
effort to distinguish the Project from other COBS (SO2) activities. As per the PFE SoW, both Project names are used in
this document; however, one should recognize that ARD’s partner, CARE-Uganda, played an integral role in Project
implementation, particularly for decentralized environmental action planning. Although the Project carries the name
of the SO, many other USAID-funded activities (ICRAF/AFRENA, ECOTRUST Cooperative Agreement, Africare,
AWF) contributed to achievement of the COBS SO2.
INTRODUCTION
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 2
1.1 COBS SUPPORT PROJECT GOALS
The overall thrust of the COBS Support Project aimed to build institutional capacity behind the
National environment action plan (NEAP) and the National Environmental Statute (NES),
which codified Uganda’s commitment to a new set of environmental goals and policies. The
contract broke this overall objective into a set of discrete RMs corresponding to the spectrum of
key GoU actors in the area of environment and natural resources (E/NR) management. Subse￾quent to substantive modification of the original TO, the Project addressed:
ß Biodiversity conservation in PAs by increasing the Uganda Wildlife Authority’s (UWA) ca￾pabilities to develop and implement general management plans (GMPs) in selected PAs (RM1).
ß Environmental planning and management outside PAs (“biodiverse landscapes/Districts”)
by increasing the capacity of selected Districts to develop and implement District environ￾ment action plans (DEAPs) as an integral part of District-level development planning and
implementation (RM2).
ß Capacity-building and institutional support for environmental assessment (EA) and envi￾ronmental review through (1) mainstreaming EA, review, and monitoring in selected Dis￾tricts and (2) increasing capacity, effectiveness, and integration of EA/EIA (environmental
impact assessment (EIA) training and education delivery within District and national man￾agement agendas (RM3).
In addition to these three core results modules, the TO included flexible, as-needed provision
for “technical and program support to activities that support the SO2 Program” that were not
otherwise covered (RM4). This RM was primarily used for the institutional strengthening of
Uganda’s Environmental Conservation Trust (ECOTRUST). A final module addressed coordi￾nation and administration of the activity (RM5).
1.2 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation pays particular attention to documenting best practices and lessons learned and
interpreting these with respect to COBS SO2 activities that might be built on under SO7 of the
new USAID strategy. The evaluation approach follows current USAID guidance in the sense
that the team views evaluation as a collaborative exercise intended to enhance the effectiveness
of program implementation by responding to specific management needs. The evaluation,
therefore, (1) documents achievements and (2) documents shortcomings against expectations
reflected in contracts, work plans, and other programmatic documents; (3) examines evidence of
impact and sustainability primarily to the degree that they create an enabling institutional envi￾ronment for biodiversity conservation; and (4) frames lessons learned from the ongoing COBS
support in terms of the strategic refocusing under the new SO7, which shifts focus to economic
growth but still includes environment.
The COBS Support Project has been a comprehensive institutional support Project and has
addressed capacity issues particularly for improved planning and plan implementation in a
number of mostly government organizations. It has done so, in many cases, using partnerships
and other indirect means. The team used a range of methods to collect the necessary informa￾tion to accomplish the evaluation purposes.
INTRODUCTION
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 3
Week One consisted of reviewing key documents to identify issues, tasking assignments,
establishing a schedule and field itinerary (see box), and holding a series of initial interviews
with the key COBS staff, partners, and USAID. This was followed by field visits to the south￾western Districts and PAs. The team incorporated the discussion methodology (developed by
the Institute for Cultural Affairs) to guide information gathering. The process was iterative and
built an increasingly detailed understanding of key Project activities and results. Key informant
and group interviews, field visits, “outsider” perspectives, direct observation, and secondary
source material all contributed to an increasingly complete composite for each of the key areas
of Project activity and thus of assessment. This combination of multiple sources enabled the
team to triangulate findings that support the PFE’s conclusions, recommendations, and lessons
learned. Through formal and informal information-sharing, we attempt to better incorporate the
diverse perspectives of the Project’s multiple stakeholders. As the period of data collection
ended, the team held a structured consensus-building retreat to validate a single united evalua￾tion perspective, identify information gaps, and clarify areas of ambiguity.
Overall Evaluation Schedule
July 30–Aug. 3 Team Planning Meeting
Introductory interviews with key institutions
Document review and preparation of Evaluation Work plan
Preparation of Field visit
Aug. 4–11 Field visit to Southwestern Uganda (see detailed schedule)
Aug. 12–17 Follow-up interviews with implementation partners
Refinement of writing assignments/drafting of findings
Internal team consensus building retreat
Aug. 19–27 Preparation of initial draft report
Preparation and presentation of findings
Refinement of draft report based on written and oral feedback
Presentation of draft report
Aug. 28–Sep. 18 Review and Completion of Final Evaluation document
1.3 THE EVALUATION TEAM
The PFE team consisted of three individuals with a breadth of overlapping experience in USAID
performance monitoring and evaluation (M&E), biodiversity, and environmental and natural
resource management (ENRM) analysis, participatory planning, and knowledge of Uganda’s
experience in these areas.
ß Dr. Frederick Sowers led the three-person team and took the substantive lead for evaluating
PA management planning and implementation.
ß Frank Muhereza directed his background in political science and natural resources to the
challenges of assessing environmental action planning and action plan implementation at
the District and other levels of local government.
ß Monica Kapiriri brought strong experience in local participation in forestry and other natural
resources management field activities. She took the lead for those components of the COBS
Support Project that involve outreach and training, especially in the areas of environmental
impact review and management.
INTRODUCTION
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 4
The team functioned as a unit, sharing information and building consensus as an integral
method of operation. As such, this document is presented as a unified report reflecting the
team’s perspective.
1.4 OVERVIEW
The COBS Support Project represents a three-year effort that began in September 1999 and
ended September 30, 2002. As a “support Project,” the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability
of the effort depended primarily on results of long- and short-term technical assistance, training
and capacity-building, and limited logistical and material support to diverse set of Ugandan
government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) concerned with improving conserva￾tion and environmental management. Although COBS Support Project’s field focus was con￾fined to the western part of the country, its institutional scope and challenges were national.
The limited budget ($7 million, subsequently reduced to $5.2) encouraged USAID and ARD–
COBS to adopt an indirect strategy of mobilizing personnel and resources within the existing
key beneficiary organizations. The Project was efficient and largely successful in this regard; in
some areas, remarkable results were achieved.
The two major areas of support for planning and plan implementation focused on (1) rede￾fining the management paradigm for the PA system under the UWA and (2) integrating envi￾ronmental concerns into local government planning and development programs through im￾proving and “mainstreaming” the District environment action plan (DEAP) process. The
evaluation will conclude that COBS Support made instrumental contributions that helped UWA
adopt system-wide changes (Section 2.0). Over time, the team expects the resulting manage￾ment improvements will halt encroachment into PAs, improve ecosystem health, and restore
wildlife populations. The evaluation also concludes that the COBS Support Project interventions
engaged District, Subcounty, and Parish local government structures and involved council
members and local populations to define a state-of-the-art approach to DEAPs. The methodol￾ogy has been adopted as the national standard and emulated, with varying success, in non￾COBS Districts in other areas of the country (Sections 3.0 and 7.0). The approach, moreover, has
been so appreciated by local government officials that it is serving as a model for planning in
other sectors and is facilitating the incorporation of environmental concerns into the annual
sectoral plans, especially in forestry and agriculture. The team further concludes that the par￾ticipatory process involving local populations and Subdistrict institutions has paved the way
for implementation of the plans and for the type of partnerships envisioned under SO7. Pilot
project experience provides early support for this conclusion.
The Project was unable to achieve parallel accomplishments in its efforts to institutionalize
environmental assessment (EA), review, and management (Section 4.0, covering RMs 3 and 4 in
the original TO). From the outset, USAID’s strategic refocusing of COBS meant that the Project’s
original RM, directed to establishing a series of environmental liaison units (ELUs) within na￾tional-level lead agencies, was dropped. The ELUs were to have strengthened the National En￾vironmental Management Authority (NEMA) in its effort to implement the environmental
management provisions of the NES. These units were closely tied to the EA/EIA goals and thus
affected implementation of that part of the program. Efforts at the national level failed to gain
traction and were scaled back as the Project’s budget was reduced. Training, awareness, and
INTRODUCTION
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 5
capacity-building at the field level was well received, but we argue that even these accom￾plishments have not been securely institutionalized.
The Project also provided support on request to the USAID Mission toward achievement of
the COBS SO and its integration with the economic growth SO in crafting the ISP’s new SO7.
The evaluation concludes that this provision for flexibility and mobilization by need generally
functioned well, but because of substantial turnover in Mission leadership and SO team staff,
there is scant institutional record regarding the use of these outputs.
An exception is ongoing support to ECOTRUST. ECOTRUST, as a COBS SO institution, also
underwent a period of prolonged uncertainty as USAID refocused. This refocusing called into
question transformation of the organization from USAID/COBS Grants Management Unit
(GMU) to autonomous Ugandan conservation NGO. During transition, ARD–COBS provided
essential technical, managerial, and organizational development support, without which ECO￾TRUST might not have survived to meet the next level of challenges in its effort to achieve long￾term sustainability as a national environment, conservation, and sustainable development
grant-making body. We argue that, despite this support, ECOTRUST remains vulnerable, and
we offer suggestions as to how the PRIME/West component of SO7 can help achieve the neces￾sary autonomy for the organization to continue indefinitely into the future (Section 5.0).
The evaluation also documents certain aspects of COBS Support Project structure and ad￾ministration, especially those that seem relevant to improving performance under SO7 and its
support activities (Section 6.0). ARD and CARE overcame initial start-up concerns to provide an
integrated team approach that was administratively efficient and encouraged initiative and en￾gagement across a wide range of actors. It is our intention that by evaluating what was and
what was not accomplished, the PFE will contribute to capturing salient lessons learned that
retain their relevance moving forward as the SO7 expands the involvement of civil society and
the private sector in the conservation and use of western Uganda’s critical and biologically rich
landscapes.
Our presentation adopts the project convention of using the core RMs as a mode for organ￾izing and presenting results. The team strives to report its conclusions and recommenda￾tions/lessons learned with reference to the specific findings and analysis that led to them. We
use summary tables in each section to document what was accomplished and what was not.
Detailed recommendations for specific program modules are covered in the individual RM sec￾tions, but the broader programmatic guidance is summarized in the Lessons Learned section.
Users of the evaluation results can choose to make use of the detailed findings to more com￾pletely follow the evaluation rationale or to focus at the broadest level.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 6
SECTION 2.0
RM1: RATIONALIZING MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN PAS
2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
RM1’s goal was to “Increase UWA’s long-term planning and management capabilities through assis￾tance to develop and implement General Management Plans (GMPs) for selected protected areas.” Prior
to COBS and the preceding Action Program for the Environment (APE) program, PA planning
had been identified as a serious constraint to effective conservation of resources in and around
the country's parks and wildlife reserves. What plans did exist generally had been developed by
foreign consultants on short-term missions. They were mostly shelved and not actively used by
PA managers other than those who were similarly donor-driven. Senior wardens and staff had
no ownership of the plans and saw them as another source of tension between the central
authority and the field, and central authorities were sometimes uncomfortable with the expatri￾ate technical assistance. There were no real links between budgeting/day-to-day operations and
the plans or planning process. In addition, domestic and international turmoil had facilitated
encroachment and illegal hunting; in some areas, game census indicated precipitous drops in
animal populations among high-profile species. USAID, through its prior APE experience,
judged that integrating policy, system-wide administration, and local PA management through
improved planning and implementation could reverse some of these sources of pressure on
biodiversity. ARD–COBS was intended to put UWA in a position of continuing this momentum
beyond the life of the project and to reinforce other COBS SO2 activities.
ARD will achieve results under two broad headings, illustrated by key outcomes, as follows:
1. Management Planning: UWA Planning Unit develops GMPs for four priority PAs: Murchison
Falls NP, Bugungu and Karuma Wildlife Reserves (WRs), and Lake Mburo NP.
2. Management Plan Implementation: A procedure for annual operations planning (AOP) is
developed, tested, and used to guide management decisions and allocations of resources in
PAs with and without GMPs.
Not achieved—and eventually dropped—were two additional activities areas:
1. Management Policy Development: With affirmation that policy setting was a Ministry
attribution, direct policy intervention was outside the scope of ARD–COBS role as a support
Project.
2. Business Development and Planning: Predicated on opportunities associated with increases
in tourism. Given setbacks concurrent with Project start-up, UWA is not yet in a position to
benefit from the proposed assistance.
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 7
2.2 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Targeted Outputs Under TO Modification 2 Observations
ß Revised PA management planning process and manual actively applied
by UWA.
ß A cadre of UWA planning staff capable of defining, leading, and
managing the PA Management Plan process.
ß Revised PA management planning process and format manual, in￾cluding standardized costing procedures and design standards ac￾tively applied by UWA.
ß AOP formats to guide the allocation, monitoring, and reporting of
resources used in managing select PAs.
ß Implementation of selected aspects of the Queen Elizabeth GMP in
the area of visitor services.
ß Wildlife sectoral guidelines for EIA.
ß Done, used in several PAs.
ß ARD-funded staff absorbed by UWA—
team in place and completing plans in￾house.
ß Progress made on costing; standards
accepted and applied in advance of
manual.
ß Adopted system-wide in headquarters
and PAs.
ß Limited progress. Budget reduced.
Visitor displays camera ready (delivered
after evaluation); ECOTRUST grant
continues program.
ß Complete and submitted to NEMA.
2.2.1 Management planning and preparation of GMPs
The GMP process was reviewed, rationalized, and streamlined with support from the Project. The PFE
team found a revised PA management planning process and manual actively applied by UWA.
ARD–COBS supported UWA planning unit (UWAPU) in this effort with intermittent “medium￾term” international technical assistance from a PA planner; a full-time Ugandan Community
Conservation specialist (under the CARE subcontract); provisional employment for two
UWAPU planners; and administrative, logistical, financial, and transportation support for GMP
and related activities. Additional technical assistance for related QEPA implementation support
also contributed, though more indirectly.
Review and revision of the Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) GMP was undertaken ac￾cording to a draft GMP prepared under the previous APE contract. ARD–COBS provided finan￾cial and other support to the UWAPU to organize and lead a series of review meetings in and
around QENP with the appropriate subcommittee of the UWA Board, helped UWAPU with
revisions required prior to final approval of the QENP GMP, assisted in the graphics and final
publication and distribution of the approved version. The document was completed, published,
distributed, and referred to by one of the park wardens as “our bible.”
The GMP for QENP took 18 months and cost more than $150,000 to complete. Stakeholders
in the process appreciated the multidisciplinary, participatory approach used in its develop￾ment. The plan itself is of high quality, but the time and money needed for this process were
recognized as not being sustainable for UWA now, or any time soon. QEPA’s GMP adopted a
zoned-based as opposed to thematic priority, and this created confusion since UWA conven￾tionally organizes programs by functional sector (tourism, enforcement, etc.).
ARD–COBS Support technical assistance worked with UWA to streamline the approach
with the aim of producing quality GMPs more quickly, at lower cost, but without sacrificing the
participatory dimension to the process. The streamlining process involved the ARD–COBS
technical advisor (TA) leading a review of the GMP process manual; a workshop involving the
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 8
QENP GMP multidisciplinary team; and dialogue with senior UWA headquarters, field staff,
and other local and international organizations active in PA management planning. The result
of this effort was the drafting of a General Management Plan Process Manual that validated but
streamlined (reducing time and cost) the process. The manual was approved and published
with ARD–COBS support (UWA, 2000). The streamlined manual—although still evolving—was
judged to be well organized, pragmatic, and fully usable by UWAPU staff and others involved
in the planning process.
The ARD’s COBS Support proposal suggested that three new GMPs were to have been pro￾duced over the three years of the Project. Senior UWA staff indicated a strong preference that
implementation of the QENP plan be emphasized over producing subsequent GMPs. What un￾folded thus was a division in labor between UWAPU and the COBS Support TA. ARD–COBS
focused on a single management plan for Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) as a test for
using the improved approach and format (as well as developing a set of potential project im￾plementation activities for QEPA). The intent was to use MFNP plan as a tool for capacity￾building in UWAPU in addition to testing and refining the GMP process.
ARD’s support led to the full institutionalization of the GMP process. The revised approach was
put to practice in developing the Murchison Falls Conservation Area (MFCA) GMP, the first
undertaken with ARD–COBS providing core support and guidance (Lamprey, 2001). In fact,
UWA developed several plans concurrently using different approaches (CMS in Kidepo Valley,
an abbreviated GMP process for Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga NPs, and the new model
for MFNP). The GMP approach was weighed against an alternative planning process in Kidepo
Valley NP using the Countryside Management Systems (CMS) approach common in the UK.
Although CMS was rapid and well structured, it relied on expatriate input, was not consulta￾tive, and depended on relatively sophisticated computer and information technology. All plans
were completed.
The approved ARD–COBS supported GMP process was sustained, and UWA moved for￾ward with its application and refinement. On the basis of the MFCA experience, the GMP
structure and procedures were further revised with input from UWA Planning Units, ARD–
COBS technical assistance, and participants in the planning process (June 2001 UWA
Workshop). The Planning Unit has been actively applying the GMP approach in its work with
plan development for Bwindi and Mgahinga NPs and, for the first time without substantial
technical assistance, in Lake Mburo NP. (ARD–COBS continued to support planning personnel,
finance, and logistics for the Lake Mburo NP. A new version to bring the manual in line with
current practice is scheduled, pending an easing in the workload of the UWAPU, which has
been fully engaged in ongoing plans.
The ARD–COBS-supported GMP process engaged multiple stakeholders and created a sense of own￾ership and commitment toward actual implementation. Staff "own" their tasks and feel more respon￾sible and accountable. It is important to underscore that the participatory process, the involve￾ment of multiple stakeholders in the design and review of the draft GMPs, was critical in
developing capacity at both the headquarters and the park management levels. This directly
addressed the disjointed situation found at the outset and set the stage for effective manage￾ment implementation. Stakeholders from Districts surrounding PAs were consulted to help
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 9
identify problems. GMPs thus design appropriate interventions in such areas as community
conservation, problem animal control, allowable access and use of resources within parks, and
tourism development and revenue sharing. One chief warden commented, “Park management
is not about managing resources, it is about managing people.” People are beginning to respond
with more supportive behaviors, but the process is far from complete.
2.2.2 Management implementation
GMPs are of little value unless implemented. Effective implementation requires a system for
setting priority actions and allocating resources. The ARD–COBS contract provided for devel￾opment of an implementation system, but had only limited resources for aspects of GMP im￾plementation requiring capital investment. ARD–COBS adopted the strategy of trying to lever￾age its central planning and institution-building role to catalyze such investments under the
wider USAID–COBS SO2 and from other donors. Linking parks and their surroundings under a
unifying landscape approach was to have encouraged many areas of park plan implementation
through community conservation programs that were receiving funding under a variety of sis￾ter projects. The UWA decision to have ARD–COBS concentrate planning in MFNP limited the
potential synergy of this strategy.
AOPs represent a significant institutional step toward effective plan implementation. COBS Support
TA and UWA jointly developed a system of AOPs that provide park staff a key tool to translate general
plans into concrete actions. AOPs are action plans based on the GMP but prepared annually and
updated based on the prior year’s accomplishments and shifts in priority. AOPs are practical in
including timelines, budget, and human resource needs and they extend down to include sub￾programs and staff activities. Senior wardens expressed commitment to the plans because they
allow for (1) better management and oversight of staff, (2) facility in requesting and defending
resource requests, and, perhaps most important, (3) PA managers to creatively and flexibly bring
on board new priorities to meet the contingencies that invariably characterize field operations.
Through the AOPs, the PA plans cease to be documents placed “on the shelf to catch dust”
and, instead, are used and referred to regularly by staff at many levels. Senior park managers
see the plans as a means of focusing administration, of setting and retaining priorities, and in
coordinating potential supporters around a common agenda. This has engendered a broad
sense of ownership at all staffing levels that is tempered only by the frequent reassignment of
field staff from one PA and position to another. Opportunities to pursue specialized career
tracks within the service essentially do not exist at the field level.
The ARD–COBS contract used short-term technical assistance (STTA) and other support for
development of a system of AOPs, whereby each PA manager prepares a plan before the begin￾ning of each fiscal year that describes administrative and management activities for the coming
fiscal year (based firmly on a GMP), along with financial needs. The system incorporates moni￾toring, allows for adaptive management decisions, and tracks overall implementation of the
AOP and GMP by senior PA staff and headquarters operations staff. AOPs contain far more
detail and rigor than any previous annual work plan, and help to clarify, substantiate, and re￾spond to budget requests.
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 10
AOPs have been adopted by UWA system-wide and are being used in headquarters de￾partments as well. Managers at all levels were empowered by this tool, which affects account￾ability and transparency concerns that have hampered UWA’s performance in the past. Re￾sponsibility for overseeing AOPs rests with the UWA headquarters, Department of Field
Operations.
The development of the AOP process was a joint undertaking drawing on UWA staff and
ARD STTA; both organizations expressed considerable pride in the product of this collabora￾tion. The STTA consultant successfully conducted a scoping exercise and comprehensive analy￾sis of all aspects of PA operations, including constraints and opportunities for modify￾ing/strengthening current systems and helped UWA prepare a draft AOP for QENP. One of the
salient features was the compartmentalizing of “investment packages” necessary for imple￾mentation.
The evaluation concurs with the ARD–COBS PA Management Specialist, who considered
adoption of the AOP approach to PA management as a “major landmark for UWA” (Lamprey,
2001). At the operational level, the team judged that this planning and implementation were
negatively affected by the lack of coordination in shifting personnel from park to park and divi￾sion to division. Finally, senior management acquires a “marketing tool.” QEPA’s senior war￾den, for example, used the program clarity from AOPs as a tool with which to seek funding, in￾cluding capital expenditure potentially attractive to donors. Such a meeting took place, and
ECOTRUST and CARE sister projects, among others, are supporting parts of the QEPA GMP’s
implementation.
QEPA GMP Implementation. COBS Support Project was unable to adequately bridge the
transition from PA planning under APE to plan implementation. A broad-based set of inter￾ventions in natural resources management, visitor services, community conservation, and staff
development was eliminated as a result of the budget cut. Instead, it codeveloped a follow-on
implementation support program for QEPA, with ECOTRUST funding and oversight. Through
STTA, a possible agenda of support was drawn up that emphasized the comparative strengths
of ARD–COBS in areas such as tourism, visitor support, and administrative systems over capi￾tal-intensive activities such as roads, relocating park facilities, and enforcement. Despite some
progress and continued forward momentum in the suggested agenda, the effort to implement
certain parts of the QEPA Management Plan met with limited progress and success. The Visi￾tor’s Center, intended to be a centerpiece of implementation support, received inputs toward its
preparation but had not been constructed and furnished by the ARD–COBS close-out. ARD–
COBS judged that, as a support Project, contracting and construction were largely outside its
purview after funds were reduced. Camera-ready interpretive panels, a first output, were
observed under final UWA review during the evaluation. Construction of the facility has been
handed off to ECOTRUST, with whom implementation had been under discussion from the
outset. Specifically:
ß The QEPA proposal seeking funding from ECOTRUST was developed under the guidance
of ARD–COBS.
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 11
ß The management of COBS QEPA support has been shared between ARD and ECOTRUST.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) between ECOTRUST and UWA spells out the
modalities; ARD is part of the Joint Management Team.
ß The delays on the Visitor Center is a result of many factors, including the long process UWA
took to determine whether to renovate an existing structure or to build a new one and the
EIA process (disposal of the asbestos roofing material).
ß In retrospect, it is the PFE’s judgment that the Project could have initiated limited imple￾mentation at QENP at an earlier stage. Although it is clear that the project was not set up to
take on major construction such as roads and buildings, there are numerous areas of imple￾mentation that could have potentially minimized the dichotomy between planning and im￾plementation interests. For example, development of logos and signage standards, bound￾ary marking, tourism panel development, certain by-law negotiations, and others could
have paralleled other Project efforts to have made the implementation assistance integrate
more smoothly with other support. Implementation was, however, inhibited by a climate of
uncertainty brought about by a combination of a period of strained USAID–UWA relations
and of delays in the ARD–COBS TO modification, which was to have formally authorized
implementation expenditures.
2.2.3 Business planning and policy
National Policy. Very little direct policy work was undertaken. This was a decision of UWA and
the Ministry, where the Ministry was responsible for policy but ARD–COBS PA assistance was
to UWA. PA policy was intended to be addressed through working with the UWA Board of
Trustees (BoT) and other key Ministry partners in a series of focused forums designed to a state￾of-the art set of management policies intended to guide PA planning, management, and deci￾sion-making. Although the ARD–COBS offered services, no real role was defined for the proj￾ect, and this effort was dropped as scope and budget were scaled back.
ARD–COBS did contribute to a lower level set of inputs to policy and decision making. The
degree of flux experienced by the UWA BoT and Executive Director over the initial years of
project implementation precluded the more systematic objective of policy development, prom￾ulgation, and public awareness raising. During APE, UWA determined the need for and re￾cruited an internationally experienced PA system director who then operated for a three-year
period under what proved to be an unworkable management style, ended his term, and was
replaced by the current national Executive Director. In theory the Executive Director takes on
day-to-day management under the broad guidance of the BoT. Unfortunately, the BoT was ir￾regular in its oversight and frequently attempted to micro-manage the organization.
ARD response was to focus on indirect influence such as through assisting in the Commu￾nity Conservation programs through both the Community Conservation wardens and through
its sister projects, which also serves to identify policy issues. Also, the Project helped establish
EIA guidelines for governing private sector and other GoU activity within park bounds and,
more broadly, for the wildlife estate. Since the effort was more practical than policy focused, the
subject is treated in Section 4.0, with other EA/EIA activities.
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 12
Business planning. ARD’s COBS proposal included a proposed set of actions addressing the
need for UWA’s internal operations to be put on a sound financial footing. PAs were also as￾sisted in establishing an improved and equitable relationship with the private sector. Political
and social events affected tourism revenues and reduced the immediacy in the need for busi￾ness planning. Even UWA salaries were reportedly subsidized by the World Bank and USAID
(APE) for a time.
As a consequence, business and fiscal policy and administration remain in need of revision.
The current system of PA concessions remains an urgent issue relating to the private sector, as
do revenue generation and revenue-sharing mechanisms. The GMP plans increasingly involve
interaction with the private sector—through internal park concessions, outreach, grandfathered
community economic use of park resources (e.g., fishing villages within the parks), and pilot
consumptive use activities. The PFE team observed Lake Mburo NP wardens in active negotia￾tion, for example, with the sport hunting operator outside the park in an effort to devise most
appropriate institutional and financial arrangements with surrounding communities. Park
management, private sector operators, local government, and community-based organizations
(CBOs) were seeking to establish a framework in which each party’s interests were served.
2.3 CONCLUSIONS
UWA’s planning capacity places it in a position of leadership in coordinating multiple sources
of support and in stabilizing external pressures on park biodiversity. That UWA is able to rec￾ognize limitations and the need for external research and expertise indicates that UWA contin￾ues to grow into its institutional role of leadership with respect to PAs.
GMPs can be used as fund-raising mechanisms since the importance and rationale for
funding certain activities are explicit, convincing, and may be perceived as harmonious with a
funding agency’s objectives. Capitalizing biological diversity and environmental services is of
shared importance to both public and private sector PA stakeholders.
System-wide adoption of AOPs is a major accomplishment. As the AOP process moves to￾ward its third year, the PFE team concludes that, if continued, AOPs represent a major step to￾ward safeguarding park biodiversity. AOPs impose accountability and encourage initiative at
all levels. Even a minimum of management and protection will go a long way to restoring wild￾life populations. However, frequent reassignment of park staff across functional and geographic
divisions inhibits institutional efficiency.
Perceived gap between planning and implementation is important to minimize. It will al￾ways be possible to focus on funding gaps and shortfalls rather than maximizing resources
available.
2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Through PRIME and other SO7 interventions, GMP implementation should be continued.
Most GMPs contain reference to private sector activities, and these should be examined on
an individual PA basis in developing specific relationships between entrepreneurial activity
and UWA’s resource management mandate.
RESULTS MODULE 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 13
2. Follow-on USAID-funded actions can build on the increased capacity to implement PA plans:
ß Support chief wardens and Community Conservation and tourism wardens to take
strong coordination roles with programs involving the private sector and communities.
ß Refine and expand the Community Protected Area Institutions (CPIs) in areas such as
channeling revenue-sharing funds into stimulating productive investments, advocating
and negotiating for effective by-laws.
ß Ensure that private sector concessions are consistent and integrated with the GMP,
AOPs, and with EA requirements.
3. Senior PA staff and District officials should try to increase communication, information￾sharing, and coprogramming, and thus harmonize programs at the landscape level. SO7 can
support this improved integration by encouraging involvement of civil society and
commercial operators in public fora.
4. UWA should focus on the application and use of M&E as a means of sustaining forward
momentum. With the AOP process being pervasive, feedback should be immediately
translated to annual programming adjustments and priority setting.
5. UWA should review personnel assignments and other human resources policies to better
institutionalize the new system-wide processes of planning and implementation.
6. Integrate exploratory sport hunting interventions in wildlife reserves and communal and
private ranchlands, and link these programs with other community conservation programs,
outreach, and institutions (such as the CPIs).
7. Review and harmonize legislation that affects resource use, access, and conservation in PAs.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 14
SECTION 3.0
RM2: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN BIODIVERSE
LANDSCAPES/DISTRICTS
Under RM2, COBS Support Project planned to increase capacity of local District councils and
rural communities to develop and implement Environmental Action Plans (EAPs) to conserve
and protect natural resources as an integral part of District-level development.
3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
At the broad level, the COBS Support Project planned to (1) Review and streamline the DEAP
process, (2) prepare DEAPs, and (3) implement EAPs in critical ecosystems. Specifically, the
following key results/targets were planned under this TO:
ß DEAPs developed in four Districts.
ß EAP implementation active in at least 4 Districts, with activities of at least 10 Subcounty
EAPs under implementation.
ß System in place and capacity built in local government for M&E of DEAP implementation.
ß An interdistrict (“landscape”) grouping is established of local government officials and
partners representing the four COBS Support target Districts, which exchanges experience
and information and acts as an advocacy group in E/NR issues in southwest Uganda.
To achieve the above results/targets, the following outputs were planned:
ß Revised DEAP process manual that includes relevant local council (e.g., Subcounty) action
planning guidelines.
ß Parish EAPs (PEAPs), Subcounty EAPs (SEAPs), and DEAPs produced and submitted for
approval in all target Districts.
ß Linkages established and local capacity built to enable local authorities responsible for EAP
implementation to connect with potential sources of support such as “internally” generated
revenue (local taxes), PMA nonsectoral conditional grants, and other donor/NGO develop￾ment funds.
ß A series of lessons-learned documents and capacity-building sessions developed and deliv￾ered, in collaboration with the USAID-funded Environmental Planning and Economic De￾velopment (EPED) project, that explain and extend the participatory EAP process, including
the demonstration of results.
ß A pilot process for developing and enforcing agreements for the management of natural re￾sources held under control of local authorities.
At the outset of COBS, DEAP planning had begun in a number of Districts, mostly where the
process had been driven by donor interest. In other words, environment, outside of donor￾driven programs, was simply not on the planning and funding radar screen. Under DEAPs
prior to COBS Support Project, activity was limited and isolated from other sectors and thus
had negligible impact on land use in effected Districts. An underlying premise of COBS thus
was that for environmental concerns to be addressed at the local government level and in the
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 15
rural milieu itself, increased sensitivity and institutional integration of E/NR management as a
cross-cutting concern would be necessary. Stand-alone programs would need to give way to
environmentally sound activities being mainstreamed into District institutions and into the eve￾ryday lives of rural resource users.
3.2 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: DEAP
The program designed to meet these challenges was comprehensive and ambitious. The sum￾mary table (below) of verified results presented here confirms that the Project met its revised
planning targets, and the fact that PEAPs, SEAPs, and DEAPs were developed in all four focus
Districts is an achievement for which the Project ought to be credited. The table also documents
progress toward plan implementation.
Results and Outputs Summary Table Target Actual
Development of DEAPs
NEMA DEAP process manual guidelines reviewed.
PEAPs formulated and approved in 4 Districts.
SEAPs formulated and approved in 4 Districts.
DEAPs formulated and approved in 4 Districts.
Approved SEAPs integrated into SDP in 4 Districts.
Approved DEAPs integrated into DDPs in 4 Districts.
NEMA Draft “Best Practices” Process manual produced.
1
316
62
4
62
4
1
1
316
62
4
62
4
1
Active Implementation of EAPs
DEAP M&E manual developed, implemented, and in use in target Districts. 1 1
Monitoring and Evaluation of DEAP implementation
SEAP priorities implemented in ARD focus Districts in collaboration with ECOTRUST.
DEAP Pilot Implementation Activities (PIA) undertaken.
Guide funding opportunities for DEAP implementation drafted.
10
 4
1
12
4
1
Establishment Inter-District Grouping
A LTF established and functional in ARD–COBS target Districts.
LTF workshops held to link Districts with funding bodies.
A Lessons-Learned from DEAP processes document drafted.
1
?
1
1
1
1
3.2.1 Review and streamline the DEAP process
When the ARD–COBS Project started in 1999, several Districts were undertaking DEAPs using
different approaches. IUCN was supporting the Districts of Kapchorwa; USAID was working
through EPED in Masindi and APE in Mbale; and NEMA provided assistance, with World Bank
support, in Kasese and Kabale in the southwest (NEMA also supported several other Districts
in other regions). All these DEAP approaches and processes were reviewed to rationalize the
process and streamline guidelines for implementation of DEAPs in ARD–COBS focus Districts.
The project supported a national stakeholders workshop on DEAP formulation in February
2000. A National Task Force chaired by NEMA with a membership drawn from various DEAP
practitioners was formed to draft a Best Practices Manual, on the basis of which an ARD con￾sultant developed an operational draft DEAP manual in September 2000. This distillation of
process and its adoption represents a significant accomplishment and point of departure for the
subsequent refinement of the process.
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 16
Transfer of successful model in process. The ARD–COBS Project has strengthened NEMA as an
institution by supporting and promoting its leading role in DEAPs through the provision of lo￾gistical and financial support toward convening NEMA’s DEAP workshops and the National
Task Force (NTF). NTF was formed for the preparation of a draft “Best Practices Process Man￾ual”; draft DEAP “Best Practices” Process manual has been prepared. To transfer lessons to the
field, NEMA’s District Support Staff helped train facilitators for ground-floor planning at the
Parish level, and supported ARD–COBS in the development of PEAP, SEAP, and DEAP meth￾odologies. ARD–COBS was tasked by the NTF to take the lead in the revision of the DEAP “Best
Practices Process Manual,” which is being developed by the Project. A final version of the
DEAP manual was being formulated to incorporate the various experiences from DEAP imple￾mentation. The revised DEAP manual will be developed after the National Workshop and in
consultation with a recalled NTF.
The ARD–COBS/CARE Environmental Planning TA produced a first draft of the Lessons￾Learned Document entitled “Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: Participatory Bot￾tom-up Planning for Management of Environment Under Decentralized Governance,” which
revised and prepared for sharing with different DEAP practitioners and stakeholders. This out￾put came too late for the evaluation to assess this product’s quality and impact, but it does re￾flect the Project’s commitment to continuously improving processes.
Monitoring and Evaluation System of DEAP Implementation Established. ARD–COBS STTA as￾sisted in developing a DEAP M&E manual that allows each District to carefully follow EAP im￾plementation in the approximately 60 Subcounties. The M&E manual has been adopted and in￾ternalized by key District staff and has been incorporated into the draft DEAP documents. The
M&E document specifies the reporting requirements and includes an action plan matrix that
highlights the specific actions required of key stakeholders. The active involvement of key
stakeholders is necessary both for program implementation and monitoring because of the lim￾ited human and financial resources available in the target Districts’ administration for moni￾toring activities. The system seems comprehensive, but it is too early to judge what its institu￾tional impact will be in the post-Project period.
3.2.2 DEAPs developed in four Districts
DEAPs have been developed in all the four ARD–COBS focus Districts through a highly par￾ticipatory DEAP formulation process. To ensure this extensive participation, new procedures
were developed, tested and modified, and retested, concurrently with the training of DEAP fa￾cilitators. As described in detail in Project documents, the DEAPs were developed from the
bottom-up—that is, the development started with the Parishes, which each developed their own
plan, then to the level of the Subcounties, and finally to the District level. Overall coordination
was carried out by a DEAP District task force (DTF).
Establishment of the DEAP DTFs involved key players and build broad ownership of multiple sectors
from the outset. To spearhead the DEAP process in each District, a seven-person DTF was con￾stituted by the Chief Administrative Officer. Members often include representatives of the Dis￾trict technical planning committees and/or heads of departments closely linked to E/NR such as
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 17
forestry, agriculture, fisheries, as well as planning. COBS Support Project DEAP/Cs were ex￾officio members of the DTF and the DEOs, and provided a secretariat role for the DTFs.
The DTFs chair varied in target Districts. In Bushenyi the District Extension and Production
Coordinator functioned as chair. In Rukungiri (and later Kanungu) and Kisoro, the DTFs were
chaired by Deputy Chief Admistrative Officers. The role of the DTF was to sensitize and mobi￾lize District technical administration and political leaders about the importance of the DEAP
and the DEAP process through presentations during District council sessions. Local environ￾ment committees were formed at the different local council levels in target Districts where they
did not exist. These committees in turn served to sensitize local communities on environmental
issues.
The Project effectively used formulation of PEAP guidelines and the draft DEAP manual to further a
process of mainstreaming environment. The formulation of PEAPs, SEAPs, and DEAPs was spear￾headed by teams of EAP facilitators in the target Districts. These facilitators were identified and
trained from among the Subcounty extension staff, including agriculture, forestry, veterinary
services, health, cooperatives, fisheries, Community Development Officers. In the Districts
where ARD–COBS was undertaking the DEAP process, the existence of many players with
similar and/or converging interests created a high potential for duplication of efforts, confusion,
and conflict, yet at the same time the plethora of projects, experiences, and institutions working
in environment also presented an opportunity for important synergy. The draft DEAP manual
was embraced as a unifying diagnostic tool that could be used by other programs as well.
PEAPs developed and approved. Using trained EAP facilitators, the Project successfully sup￾ported the formulation of all 316 PEAPs in the four target Districts. PEAPs formulation involved
an elaborate and carefully planned data collection process at the Parish in which representatives
from all the villages in the Parish participated. The process includes the following: transect
walks across a Parish covering several villages to identify environment problems experienced;
brainstorming session on the environmental problems identified to prioritize problems; devel￾opment of an action plan matrix to rank the six most critical environmental problems; and ac￾tions recommended are at Parish level. PEAPs were kept simple and focused on real environ￾mental problems. The whole process of formulation of the 316 PEAPs took four months, from
January 2001 to April 2001. The developed PEAPs were launched during Parish Environment
Awareness Training (PEATs) (see Section 4.0).
SEAPs developed and approved. To be able to take into account the richness of the individual
PEAPs, yet avoid the tendency toward homogenization that comes from synthesizing and pri￾oritizing inputs from all the PEAPs, the COBS Support Project supported the use of visioning in
each Subcounty. The following description of the process shows how ARD–COBS progressively
built capacity and ownership at each step of implementation.
The basic tenet of the visioning approach was the development of a consensus on a desired
vision of improved environment and natural resources conditions in the Subcounty. Common
environmental issues from constituent Parishes were synthesized, and a matrix was generated
that linked identified priorities to proposed actions. Specifically, the vision-based action plan￾ning method entails the following:
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 18
ß Develop a vision by identifying current and future opportunities and assessing available
resources.
ß Identify appropriate actions and build consensus around planned actions to realize this vision.
ß Identify actors needed to implement desired actions.
ß Identify gaps in local implementation needs (human and financial) and mold these into vi￾able projects to attract the necessary resources.
ß Identify the institutional responses/changes required to initiate/execute these actions.
Participants in the process include members from the SEAP Task Forces (STFs), LC2 chairper￾sons, Parish Chiefs and LC2 executives, leading farmers in the Subcounty, as well as a selection of
PEAP participants as representatives of the communities. According to Project estimates, more than
2000 people participated in SEAP formulation in Bushenyi, Rukungiri/Kanungu, and Kisoro
Districts. The visioning and formulation of the SEAPs were guided by the same facilitators who
had guided the development of the PEAPs, but who had received additional training specific to
the SEAP formulation process. All SEAPs have been formulated and distributed in the target
Districts, have been, approved and are being used in Subcounty development planning.
DEAPs formulated and approved. The same participatory process used for the development of
PEAPs and SEAPs also formed the basis for the development of the DEAPs. As a precursor to
the DEAP formulation process, a situation analysis report was produced that summarized Dis￾trict-level conditions and incorporated emergent cross-cutting issues from the SEAPs. Situation
analysis reports were discussed during two-day workshops in each District. Results of these
discussions were incorporated in District-wide visions, plans, and actions. The workshops were
attended by LC5 councilors and executives, District departments and sectors, partner organiza￾tion (NGOs and projects), central government agencies, Subcounty chairpersons and chiefs, and
chairpersons of Districts statutory bodies. More than 500 people participated in the four District
DEAP workshops. The approval of DEAPs in all Districts was postponed, awaiting the forma￾tion of new District councils by July 2002; the intent was to use the DEAP approval process to
brief the new District councilors on the DEAP processes and gain their commitment.
All the DEAPs in the four target Districts had been approved starting with Bushenyi on 19
July 2002, followed by Kisoro and Runkungiri. The Kanungu DEAP approval process was held
on 9 August 2002, and was witnessed by the PFE team.
The DEAP process was important because it helped integrate EAPs into overall multisectoral Dis￾trict Development Plans (DDPs). Unlike many previous DEAP efforts that were isolated, low￾impact ARD–CARE assistance immediately attracted wider stakeholder buy-in. The integration
of the EAPs with overall development plans started immediately after the Parish and Sub￾county exercises were formulated. This is important because it illustrates that many of the ENR
issues and problems identified at Parish and Subcounty level were useful to the District plan￾ners in the preparation of the DDP. The integration of EAPs into the DDP proceeded concur￾rently with the development of the EAPs. After DEAP drafts were completed, mainstreaming of
EAPs did not wait for the approval of the DEAPs by the District councils in the four focus Dis-
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 19
tricts. In reality, as soon as the drafts were ready, the District Development Plans incorporated
budgets for environmental issues/problems and priorities identified in the DEAPs.
This process of integrating EAPs into District-wide development plans and budgets was an
important Project accomplishment. Without implementation of environment activities by mul￾tiple sectors, little could be accomplished—as was the case prior to the Project. The District En￾vironment Department in all four target Districts consists of one person, the District Environ￾ment Officer (DEO), without any other subordinate staff. The annual budget estimates for the
environment department in Kisoro was Ushs. 2.5 million. In Bushenyi, in 2001/2, the District
Production and Environment Department budgeted Ushs. 176 million, but was allocated only
36%. These sums are insignificant. Previous DEO funding through NEMA created minor iso￾lated programs. COBS Support Project mainstreaming and budgeting represent a major break￾through.
3.2.3 EAP implementation
Implementation took place at both District and Subcounty levels. The intent of early funding
was to consolidate and internalize processes and lessons resulting from the action planning and
to strengthen the link between planning and implementation.
Implementation of SEAP priorities. ARD–COBS worked with other USAID-funded partners,
especially ECOTRUST, to undertake pilot implementation of selected SEAP priority activities.
COBS Support Project worked with its partners to ensure that implementation activities were
properly supported by available human and financial resources. ARB-COBS organized a DEAP
team/ECOTRUST meeting in Kabale in June 2001, and developed a short-term action plan for
selected pilot SEAP implementation activities in order to qualify for funding support from
ECOTRUST. Pilot implementation of SEAPs started in three Districts in July 2001.
The SEAPs, which built on the visioning process, were specific because they not only de￾lineated the type of actions needed to move toward a common positive environmental vision
for the Subcounty, but also determined the nature of resources (human and financial) required
to implement those actions, on the basis of which gaps in resources and services were identified.
Projects were developed around these gaps, while identifying, at the same time, the various in￾stitutional responses needed to address why local people and institutions are not tackling obvi￾ous E/NR problems.
The following were considered to assess available resources: (1) the direct involvement of
local community members; (2) the possibility of co-opting input from “sister” USAID- and
CARE- funded projects into SEAP implementation; and (3) the provision of technical advise
from the LC3 and LC5 government bodies such as NEMA and UWA, and specialized technical
assistance from the Project. Where additional funding was required, implementation activities
that were favored were those that could easily leverage funding from the following: (1) gov￾ernment grants to the Subcounties under the PMA (Nonsectoral Conditional Grants) and Na￾tional Agricultural Advisory Development Service; (2) grants from various sources operating
within Uganda, including ECOTRUST; and (3) revenue sharing from UWA PAs. ECOTRUST
grants were awarded to support the following.
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 20
In Kisoro District, SEAP priority activities for implementation were undertaken under a project
called Nyakabande Subcounty Environmental Improvement Project (NSEIP), and focused on
soil conservation (to control soil erosion on slopes of hills such as Murambi, Shozi, and Giso￾rora) and water/sanitation improvement (to promote community hygiene and construct Ferro￾cement water tanks). Project implementation was undertaken by Gisorora Twubake Association
(GTA) in collaboration with the District Local Government and Water Aid. Other Subcounty
EAPs planned for implementation included Nyarushanje Tree and Fruit Production project in
Nyabwishenya Subcounty and Amajyambere Iwacu Agro-forestry project in Muramba Sucounty.
In Bushenyi District, SEAP implementation was undertaken in Kabwohe-Itendero Town
Council with a local NGO called Rural Agricultural Services Support Association (RUASSA), in
collaboration with Bushenyi District Farmers Association (BUDIFA), supported by ECOTRUST
and the Kabwohe-Itendero Town Council. The project implemented was called Kabwohe￾Itendero Town Council Environmental Project, and was intended to reduce the rate of environ￾mental degradation/pollution and improve sanitation and cleanliness in the town council. The
following activities were undertaken through the project: (1) construction of eco-san toilet in the
town council; (2) establishment of a fruit and tree nursery as a source of planting material for
the town council; and (3) sensitization seminars on general environmental protection, manage￾ment of garbage, pollution, and general sanitation.
CARE’s QEPA Community Conservation sister project supported Kicwamba and Kyam￾bura Subcounties in Bushenyi to implement SEAP priorities involving live fencing of the park
boundary using Mauritius thorn. Community members have been trained in use of the thorn
plant.
In Rukungiri District, SEAP implementation focused on promoting a harmonious relation￾ship between QEPA and the surrounding communities in Bwambara Subcounty, Rukungiri
District. In collaboration with the District local government and Bwambara Subcounty, a local
NGO, Rukungiri District Farmers Association (RUDIFA), was supported by ECOTRUST to un￾dertake (1) sustainable natural resources management awareness raising in communities adja￾cent to QEPA; (2) growing of indigenous multipurpose trees and wood lots in 48 villages adja￾cent to QEPA; (3) establishment of a live fence of Mauritius thorn around the boundary of 4
Parishes surrounding the Park; and (4) the increase in crop and livestock yields for small-holder
farmers in the 48 villages by over 50%. After the creation of Kanungu District, many of these
activities continued in the new District, especially the establishment of live fences to deal with
problem animals/vermin and tree growing to control soil fertility loss.
DEAP Pilot Implementation Activities. ARD is also supporting 4 DEAP pilot implementation
activities in focus Districts. These early stage initiatives will be transferred to ECOTRUST sup￾port when ARD–COBS ends. Their thematic focus was determined by the frequency of occur￾rence of the problem/issue across the multi-District landscape. Consideration was also given to
the possibility of and potential for achieving early results that demonstrate success in the re￾maining life of the Project. Particular attention was placed on the potential for the planned in￾terventions to contribute to conservation of biodiversity within or in the vicinity of the respec￾tive Subcounties. From the selected thematic areas, the specific implementation activities were
identified on the basis of the level of prioritization by the District, relevance to biodiversity con-
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 21
servation, and proximity to critical biodiversity areas. They were also determined by the need to
have variety, avoid duplication, and generate lessons learned across the various land use/cover
areas. The replicability and opportunities for anchoring the selected implementation activity to
public information and education was also considered as critical.
Many of the pilot implementation activities were slow in starting. The Bushenyi Pilot Im￾plementation Activity was formally launched in 2002. PIA implementation had only started in
Rukungiri. Materials are already on site for a nursery bed establishment, and actual work
should be starting soon. The implementation of DEAP priorities through PIAs had commenced
with the following:
ß Soil and water conservation in landslide-prone areas of Nyabubaare, Kyamuhunga, and Ry￾eru Subcounties of Bushenyi District. Eleven planning and coordinating meetings were held at
the District and Subcounty level; 270 contact farmers were selected in 27 villages to lead the
conservation efforts. These farmers host their neighbors during demonstrations and training.
ß Management of problem animals in Kihihi and Nyamirama Subcounties of Kanungu District.
The District council was sensitized, and 21 trainees were selected as vermin guard recruits.
ß Management and conservation of lakeshore wetlands of lakes Kayumbu and Chahafi in
Murora Subcounty Kisoro District. A Subcounty implementation committee has been formed.
Wetlands Inspectorate Division and NEMA were consulted and data collected for a Wetland
Management Plan.
ß Increasing tree cover in Nyarushanje and Nyakagyeme Subcounties in Rukungiri District. Sub￾county councilors were sensitized and farmers were selected for on-farm training in apiary.
The ARD–COBS Support Project has been successful at engaging stakeholders at multiple lev￾els. The following table presents some examples of how, through institutional support activities,
specific behaviors are beginning to change.
Capacity for Districts to fundraise helped reduce the sense of breach between plan and implementa￾tion. A guide to funding opportunities for DEAP implementation has been drafted by the Project.
This guide provides simple, generic pointers regarding grant applications, irrespective of
source, and an outline of what a grant application should contain. It lists 10 granting agencies in
Uganda that may potentially provide funds to the type of project emerging from EAPs. Pro￾posal guidelines from the different granting bodies are included in the guide. This guide was
completed in August 2002 during the PFE, but the training in fundraising that had been ear￾marked for Districts has not been undertaken.
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 22
Examples of Successful Engagement
ß In Nyakabande Subcounty, where Gisorora Twubake Association was implementing SEAP with support from
ECOTRUST and COBS Support Project, by-laws had been put in place to restrict cattle grazing on Gisorora
Hill in order to enable the growth of vernonia species planted for bund stabilization. However, the LC5 Chair￾man cattle were once found grazing on the Hill, and he was fined Ushs. 50,000/=, which he duly paid.
ß Through Public Information and Education (PIE) that accompanied SEAP implementation, a member of
RUASSA in Kabwohe-Itendero said, “I felt very ashamed after I learned that our poorly constructed toilet led
to fecal contamination of all our so-called protected water sources.”
ß In Kicwamba Subcounty, the CARE/QEPA, in collaboration from the Project, had supported the construction of
trenches around the boundary of the PA, which had been picked by communities in Parishes where the CC proj￾ect was not operating. In Ryeru Subcounty, where the project was collaborating with ECOTRUST to construct
bunds and stabilize the bunds with grass, the technology was being quickly adopted by non-focus farmers.
ß In Murora Subcounty, the community was policing Lake Chahafi, where fish fries were recently introduced in a
bid to restock the lake.
ß By using the Bushenyi DEO to train staff of COBS Support Project non-target Districts in the development of
DEAPs, NEMA seems to have acknowledged the experience and technical capacity built by Project in envi￾ronment action planning.
ß The EAP process has generated substantial interest and capacity in environmental management from the vil￾lages to the Districts, from the common people to the District politicians. This will provide useful entry points
for future development assistance. It had, for example, helped PA management in reducing conflicts between
communities and PAs in DEAP-focus Districts, compared with non-DEAP Districts.
ß The DEAPs are invaluable, not only as EAPs, but also as broad strategic documents as demonstrated by the
new Kanungu District, which was inaugurated on 1 July 2001. A new District it is yet to complete its core
documentation, including its DDP. The LC5 Chairperson frequently uses the DEAP as a basic information
source and planning instrument to inform her meetings with local and central government staff.
ß While the approval of some DEAPs was delayed, awaiting swearing in of newly elected District councils, it did
not take long for the draft DEAPs to be approved by the respective councils, even when there were many
new councilors in each District. Kisoro, Bushenyi, and Rukungiri DEAPs were approved in July 2002; that of
Kanungu was approved in August 2002 during this PFE. This is an indication that COBS Support Project has
built a critical mass of technical capacity in EAP that is out there in the Districts. The new District councilors
were already familiar with the DEAP process, for they attended EAP processes at one time.
ß In Chahafi and Kayumbu lakes in Murora Subcounty Kisoro, surrounding communities agreed following inter￾vention by the Project to leave 3 m from the lake shore uncultivated.
ARD–COBS planned to build capacity for Districts to fundraise to implement DEAP priorities
through training and providing linkages and a guide book for funding organizations. Although
Districts had been linked with ECOTRUST for supporting implementation of SEAP priorities,
the fund-raising capacity of Districts and Subcounties responsible for EAP implementation was
still lacking. However, most Districts were using their own resources from the District treasury
(including local taxes, PMA non-sectoral conditional grants, and other donor/NGO develop￾ment funds) to implement DEAP priorities, an issue which was found to promote sustainability
of EAP implementation, although the scope of implementation activities possible using local
funds was thought to be grossly inadequate by District officials in Rukungiri.
ARD–COBS Project is developing an exit strategy that will enable its partners, especially
UWA, NEMA, the local governments, ECOTRUST, and others, to continue implementation of
planned activities after 30 September, when the Project finally closes. The responsibilities that
will be taken on by these partners should be clearly specified to allow a smooth transition.
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 23
LTF Established. ARD–COBS adopted a landscape approach to E/NR planning and plan im￾plementation. This approach incorporated the administrative Districts in the different geo￾graphical landscapes of southwestern Uganda with PAs in order to promote the conservation of
biodiversity in these critical ecosystems and enhance benefits to society. DEOs of Kasese and
Kabale were usually invited to LTF meetings in recognition of their links to the “integral land￾scape” of the Southern Albertine rifts. Transboundary issues—especially the migration of wild￾life—were referred to the central government for lack of capacity in the Districts.
The LTF also provided a forum for discussing a range of operational and policy issues
emerging from DEAP development, which was later referred to the concerned central govern￾ment bodies. The LTF included issues such as wetlands, which have a cross-border dimension
but whose sound management is difficult to enforce because they are usually degraded by
prominent locals and local leaders. Other issues referred to the center where local management
was constrained were the transboundary migration of wildlife; the conduct of EIAs; abuse of
mineral prospecting licenses by large-scale mining concerns; the disposal of non-biodegradable
substances whose manufacture is authorized by the center; and regulation of use of genetically
modified seeds.
The LTF helped bridge the gap between planning and implementation by facilitation access to fund￾ing sources. During the second LTF meeting, held in March 2002, a number of grant-making
bodies considered as potential sources of funds for different aspects of DEAP were invited to
give a series of presentations on the scope of their activities, application requirements, and pro￾cedures. Presentations were made by NEMA (on prospective small-grants program), Canadian
Fund for Local initiatives (CFLI), UNDP (on the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Pro￾gram), ECOTRUST, UWA (revenue sharing), Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Con￾servation Trust (MBIFCT), and Ireland Aid (on its in-country micro-projects scheme).
3.3 CONCLUSIONS: DEAP PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Relying on technical and administrative staff to build core capacity for EAP is more sustainable
than involvement of District and Subcounty politicians/councilors (including the local environ￾ment committees) because the latter rotate more frequently through elections.
The end of the Project, without a follow-on intervention, is likely to affect the progress of activity im￾plementation by collaborating partners. The social, economic, ecological, and environment out￾comes of COBS Support Project support to EAP capacity and implementation of identified pri￾orities will become visible after several years.
The DEAP process provides an opportunity for building synergies in the implementation of EAPs
with GMP implementation in Subcounties adjacent to PAs. The mechanism is UWA’s Community
Conservation Program, in which Community-Protected Areas Institution use structures similar
to those of the local councils. The statutory revenue-sharing by UWA with communities adja￾cent to PAs is already financing projects relevant to PA management, but which are drawn from
PEAPs and SEAPs.
A foundation has been laid for biodiversity conservation, which will enhance benefits to the communi￾ties living in the vicinity of PAs. Measurable environmental and ecological outcomes resulting
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 24
from the support to the District by the Project and the socioeconomic impacts will not only be
difficult to attribute directly to the Project—since it was mainly working behind the scenes and
in collaboration with other partners—but will also become visible only several years after the
Project has closed. For example, the evaluation team was reliably informed by QENP authorities
that there were fewer problems for the PA management, especially poaching and encroachment
on the PA, in the Districts where COBS Support Project had supported DEAPs (Bushenyi, Ru￾kungiri, Kanungu) compared with those Districts where DEAP process had not yet been fully
undertaken (such as Kasese). Project impact is more visible in terms of capacity built.
The overall process gave inadequate attention to gender issues. The majority of Subcounty exten￾sion staff in COBS Support Project target District are male. The majority of those identified for
training were therefore male. To be selected, one had to pass a written competence exam. In
Rukungiri, only one female was identified for training. Although she was selected to become a
an EAP facilitator, even when she did not make the qualifying mark, she later turned out to be
the best EAP facilitator and most popular with the communities to the extent that EAP meetings
were referred to as “Molly’s meetings,” after her name. This implied two issues: the failure to
gender-mainstream EAP facilitators’ training may have left out many other effective communi￾cators. And, written exams may not be the most appropriate means to determine effectiveness
of field-based trainers.
The link between national and District levels was not sufficiently strengthened. COBS Support
Project support model to the DEAP planning process put primary responsibility in NEMA as
the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of NEAP objectives. Although NEMA as￾sumed its fully statutory responsibilities in steering the DEAP planning processes, sometimes
its experience in this process did not evolve together with the practitioners in the field. Their
participation in critical DEAP process in the Project-target District tapered off with time. On a
number of occasions, even when invited, NEMA would not turn up to witness DEAP activities
in the Project-target Districts.
Institutional development needed for a landscape approach was not comprehensive. The LTF insuffi￾ciently incorporated District forests/forest reserves and UWA/PAs into broader intrajurisdic￾tional issues analysis, planning, and resolution. CPIs were not well-integrated into DEAPs.
COBS Support Project was limited in its ability to address this shortcoming because of its being
assigned a geographically distant park (MFNP).
Delays in implementation limit usefulness of pilot implementation activities. The pilots came too
late to make a difference during the Project, but they do reveal general motivations and Subdis￾trict-level capacity EAP structures to engage themselves, CBOs, and the NGOs in DEAP imple￾mentation.
3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS: DEAP PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
1. DEOs must make use of M&E tools to encourage plan implementation and recognition of progress.
DEOs can strengthen sustainability of the planning capacity built in District and Subcounty
technical and political officials reviewing progress in collaboration with development part￾ners, including those that COBS Support Project had been working with.
RESULTS MODULE 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 25
2. Local government projects and elements of SO7 need work with the GoU to support harmonizing
participatory planning policies and institutional mandates. DDPs and DEAPs have different leg￾islative origins (local government and the National Environment Statute, respectively).
Formal and complete integration of DEAP and DDP requires legislative reforms.
3. Build equivalent capacity by replicating the project’s DEAP process in other Districts. The utility of
bottom-up planning is central to the DDP, yet the Districts acknowledge that they do not
have the technical capacity, expertise, and resources to implement such planning. In the
Districts where the DEAP process has been undertaken, District administration see the
DEAP experience as building vital capacity and providing information and techniques for
current DDPs and future use. Replication should be undertaken in the broader context of
support to local government and decentralization.
4. Districts and the PA senior wardens need to forge stronger links to support integration of conserva￾tion and development. In communities living next to the PAs, projects that have been ear￾marked for financing under the revenue-sharing scheme should all be drawn from EAPs of
the adjacent Subcounties by PA management in collaboration with respective local authori￾ties. The initiatives being undertaken by CARE–Uganda through QEPA Community Con￾servation project in forging PA–local council links in a few Subcounties and Parishes in
Bushenyi and Rukungiri, which complemented COBS Support Project’s work on a broader
front in QEPA, should be supported once ARD–COBS project closes.
5. NEMA should undertake a concerted initiative to share the findings of COBS Support Project les￾sons-learned document, to improve ongoing DEAP processes.
6. CARE should use other funding to transfer the vision-based planning as used at the Subcounty and
District EAP formulation be adopted by the Districts and the local government Ministry for other
aspects of development planning in local government. This is because visioning is participatory,
focused, long-term horizon, strengthens ownership, and separates roles at various levels
and strengthens available partnerships. A national-level workshop could be considered.
7. Link conservation to incomes where possible. For successful conservation and sustainable devel￾opment intervention, alternative forms of livelihood need to be provided through support￾ing income generating activities. The local communities living around PAs and other fragile
ecosystem, we were told during a community meeting, are not impervious to change. Pov￾erty is what makes it difficult for them to change their ways.
8. The Project and ECOTRUST should identify and link the local governments with new partners who
will continue to provide support to DEAP priority implementation. For this to happen, the Project
needs to sit down with the leadership in the target Districts to identify which activities can
be carried on by the Districts after the Project closes, and which ones would require external
assistance for implementation. This process will also involve identifying those activities
whose implementation has been completed.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 26
SECTION 4.0
RM3: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND CAPACITY-BUILDING: ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW2
4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The RMs had the following objectives:
ß EAs are mainstreamed in sectoral and local development through increased capacity of
Districts to incorporate EA, review, and monitor development plans, policies, and actions.
ß Capacity and effectiveness of EA/EIA training and education delivery mechanisms in￾creased in support of EA and its incorporation into District, national management agenda,
and PA management.
ß Public vigilance with respect to environmental impact of rural resource use.
ß Conservation and sustainable use of Uganda natural resources enhanced through effective PIE.
To meet these objectives, the following outputs were planned:
ß In-service training for District technical and administrative staff and selected development
partners to prepare at least 80 local government officials and officers with capacity to evalu￾ate development activities based on NES.
ß Training of trainers (ToT) program for grass-roots delivery of environmental management
awareness (integrated with RM2 PIE activities).
ß Preparation of an EIA manual as a public sector desk reference for lead agencies to increase
the number of NEMA-compliant EIAs.
ß Assistance in development of a certification system for private-sector EIA practitioners.
ß Development of EIA guidelines for wildlife subsector. UWA is the primary working partner
and beneficiary of this activity, with NEMA having a key advisory and approval role.
ß (From RM 2) PIE environmental awareness campaign materials produced and transferred to
field level to integrate with environmentally sound pilot activity implementation.
4.2 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
COBS Support Project developed a program that built permanent capacity in Districts and local
populations by working through resident technical staff and key local leaders. A “cascade”
training strategy was implemented that used the master trainers for the design of the strategy
and the development of training materials. The strategy included:
 
2This section of the evaluation looked at the capacity-building support to the public environmental awareness and
assessment guidelines under ARD–COBS. The Project activities include RM 3 and components of RM1 (EIA for wild￾life) and RM2 (PIE), all of which deal with environmental assessment and management capacity-building. Note that
significant substantive changes took place between the initial program design and the end of the Project through a
TO modification that compelled the scaling down and or elimination of key activities that would have complemented
the material covered in this section and led to a greater national-level presence and impact.
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 27
1. In-service EIA/EIS training for District officials, central government officials, and environ￾mental inspectors.
2. Environmental management awareness building in Districts; development of manuals.
3. Organization of strategic EA workshops.
4. Support for establishment of a Center for Environment Management Training (CEMT), to
conduct the proposed training programs above.
5. Certification of EIA/EIS practitioners.
6. Organization of an environmental management public interest forum.
Summary of COBS Support Project Environmental Training / Awareness Efforts
District: Kisoro Bushenyi Rukungiri Kanungu Total
EA 24 23 18 18 84
1
st training
(District Staff)
9 8 9 7 33
Subcounty trainees 41 42 32 115+
PEAT estimates 1,495 5,395 2,778
+ DTOT
1,659 Est. total: 1,398+
Rukungiri/DTOT
As noted, the original SoW of the TO was refocused shortly after start-up, which had far￾reaching repercussions for RM3. As a result, several of the originally proposed capacity￾building activities had to be modified or were eliminated. Of those listed, only the first two out
of the above six proposed activities above have been successfully carried out. Activity 3, the or￾ganization of strategic EA workshops, was not supported by USAID. Activity 4, support for the
establishment of the training center, was stalled for lack of an appropriate institution to house
and take charge, and was later caught in the budget cut and eliminated. Certification (5) stalled
within NEMA and also was affected by the budget cut. NEMA could continue without Project
assistance. After the elimination of the original RM3 (ELU), the environmental management fo￾rum (6) is not being organized for lack of appropriate institutional support.
4.2.1 Formal EA/EIA training program
Strategic and budgetary modifications fundamentally altered the overall scope and focus of
EA/EIA, public awareness and education, as well as environmental management. As such, the
program changed and concentrated on the District-level activities, omitting most of the na￾tional-level support to the lead agencies. With marginal involvement of NEMA in the process,
the sense of ownership, consolidation, and integration of PIE/EIA/EA into the institutional
strategy, structure, and system of NEMA has not happened.
In-service training of District personnel from the four target Districts was undertaken with
technical leadership provided by ARD–COBS short-term technical assistance. The approach was
based on rigorous international standards, but the training used Kasese Cobalt Company Lim￾ited (KCCL) as a local case study. The in-service training in EIA/EA exceeded the set target of 80
officials by 4, bringing the total to 84 District-level officials.
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 28
Overall, the understanding and internalization of the EIA/EA/environmental management
training was good, and the end of training evaluation revealed that most trainees had attained
EIA/EA literacy.
4.2.2 Environmental management public awareness
This EA training-based activity is summarized in the accompanying table. Education for envi￾ronmental management was assumed to be a precondition for and complement to successful
EIA advocacy at the field level.
Training of Master Trainers. The Training of Trainers (ToT) function reached over 150 facili￾tators (33 Master TOT and up to 120 District TOT—see table, above) from a wide range of back￾grounds, from Subcounty extension workers to higher level local officials. Nine members of
each District received a three-day training (Entebbe 9/2001). The Master trainers participated in
the design of the training strategy and content, preparing District trainers to reach lower levels.
At the Subcounty level, awareness targeted LC 3, CBOs, Parish chiefs, Elders, prominent
farmers, and religious leaders. Work plans to reach the 316 Parishes were developed. All PEAT
training were conducted in the local language except for a few technical terms on the posters.
The Parish training, the final step in the process, reached over 11,000 individuals.
EA/EIA Support Materials prepared. The most important product was the EIA trainer’s man￾ual and training materials (package of posters). The overall design of the training manual was
based on the conviction that proper and effective environmental management at local levels re￾quire improved understanding of the ecological principles and awareness of human impact on
the environment, thus raising the need for proper environmental management (including EIA
and DEAPs) and use. The PEAT training manual was received and piloted in Bushenyi. These
manuals were reviewed, approved, printed, distributed to the Districts, and used to reach over
11,000 people.
The training manual covers both communication skills and step-wise delivery of contents.
The 21 steps intersected by questions and discussion sessions served to raise specific local con￾cerns/issues and to deepen the learning process. It covers EIA/EA and educates the communi￾ties about natural processes in the environment around them. The manual uses a pictorial ap￾proach with a few words, and employs flow diagrams to illustrate dynamics within the
environment. The use of the “sound” and “unsound” examples with clear and definitive con￾trasts compels participants to make choices and act on them. In this way, PEAT reinforces the
participatory planning process by encouraging local people to act locally and forward the more
complex cases to higher levels. A “post-training survey instrument” accompanies the training
manual to help assess the effectiveness of the training.
Environmental Management Public Awareness Program Evaluation Findings. Environmental
management awareness was well-delivered and received by both the trainees and District ex￾ecutives. Trainees interpreted the package as a story about the people and their environment.
The training helped highlight the sound and unsound environmental management practices,
which provided people with a basis for change. The training was appreciated as engaging, em￾powering, iterative, and adaptable. The technical officials from various District departments
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 29
now have better environmental knowledge and communication skills to assess/study, and are
more open to integrating environmental issues related to their core businesses.
The process cascade approach to the training was locally adapted. The contents took into ac￾count the landscape aspect of the program, and facilitators were able to relate to the local con￾texts. The posters emphasized educational rather than prescriptive messages. This seemed to be
why they were reported as especially helpful in enhancing retention levels at all ages, even of
young children and less literate members of the communities.
The combination of theory and field-based practical work enhanced learning and made the
training messages better understood and appreciated. But perhaps most important was the re￾alization by trainees that they could implement the processes on their own. They feel more
knowledgeable and therefore confident to take the process forward.
A wide range of stakeholder groups was reached. Through TOT, several District and Subcounty
official have been trained as facilitators. The multisectoral stakeholder workshops helped raise
the importance of environmental issues in all participating departments and levels of society.
The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Kisoro District says with certainty that all technical
people in his District now know what EIA is and will play their part more effectively. At the
Parish level, participants included a wide range of stakeholder groups: women, vulnerable (in
Kisoro the Batwa), youths, CBOs, religious institutions, and schools.
Improved human resource for EIA/EA in the District. Several of the trainees have improved fa￾cilitation skills and are now approached to facilitation field processes on a private basis. In
Kisoro for instance, when Africare needs a baseline survey done, COBS trainees were recom￾mended. They did a magnificent job, and are now addressed as local consultants/facilitators.
The morale and prominence of these officers have been elevated. Overall, the capacity-building
process and content have improved the human resource competent to facilitate and scale-up
sound environmental management initiatives.
The training has improved the planning capacity of field officials. As part of the District
TOT, trainees were given tips on how to prepare field work plans. Trainees particularly appre￾ciated the reminder that they need to plan in minute details. They have applied this concept to
the rest of their extension work.
Increased interaction between District level and local communities about environment issues. Before
the training, local people did not have a basis for raising environmental concerns and did not
know the offices to approach in the Districts. The training provided both the reference point
(DEO/COBS coordinators) and information about enterprises that require EIAs. More and more
cases are being reported to the DEO concerning rural enterprises that could have negative envi￾ronmental consequences. Although not all are valid, the fact that people raise these concerns
represents progress.
There has been a remarkable change in the MTOT and District TOT. Their attitudes, convic￾tions, sense of urgency with regard to environmental issues, and commitment to the process
have been a source of pride for the District leaders. However, with the closing of COBS, direct
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 30
support in terms of allowances, and transport, there is fear that these good achievements may
be frustrated in the future.
Increased interest in and demand for environmental training. In Bugongi Subcounty, Lunyinya
village Kisoro women are demanding training on soil management and production mitigation
for millet. The interest and number of farmers attending training have increased. As noted be￾low, in Bushenyi 108 farmers attended the model farmers training on their own. Although only
10 farmers were selected for training as model farmers, many more farmers attended the train￾ing. For instance in Bushenyi, averages of 4 extra farmers participated in the training. Hence, in
addition to the target of 270 farmers, 108 more farmers attended the training.
People are more receptive to soils and water conservation measures by NGOs. To quote “we real￾ized we were reaping without tending the soil base.” Several have embraced organic farming:
mulching, composite making, and agroforestry beyond the pilots.
4.2.3 Other EA/EIA support activities
The most important activities carried out were the program to certify EIA/EIS practitioners and
the development of EIA guidelines.
Certification of EIA/EIS practitioners. COBS Support Project provided assistance toward the
development of a certification program for private sector EIA practitioners through the in￾tended creation of a CEMT. Both CEMT and the certification program were started but were not
completed. They were eventually dropped after the budget for the Project was reduced
Development of EIA/EIS manual. An EIA manual was developed and prepared for use by
practitioners in multiple sectors. At the time of the evaluation, the draft manual was being pre￾pared for publication and release. It is intended to serve as base reference for public sector in￾stitutions and will provide a written blueprint for much of what was intended to be accom￾plished through the creation of ELUs in the component dropped from the original TO. It is not
possible to gauge the eventual impact and use of the manual, but its production represents a substantial
output. The manual traces the history of EIA in Uganda, and includes recommended processes
and procedures, such as a checklist vital for assessing and devising mitigation measures. The
manual was finalized by June 2002, underwent final internal review by NEMA, which is now
preparing its publication and distribution with ARD–COBS support.
Development of EIA sectoral guidelines. A local consultant from Environmental Management
Associates was hired in March 2001 to facilitate and develop the wildlife sectoral EIA guide￾lines. Extensive consultations with various stakeholders in Kampala and several field visits with
UWA staff to PA and surrounding Districts in eastern, southwestern, and northern Uganda
were carried out.
Implementation of EIA in UWA. The UWA EA/EIA sector guidelines were completed but have
not been approved by NEMA. The process was consultative, and the result is a set of user￾friendly guidelines that are simple, straightforward, and largely adequate for most proposed
activities anticipated in the PA GMPs. Although not yet assimilated, UWA has carried out some
EIA in QE and MFNP using the general guidelines under NEMA. Reports are not yet out. UWA
also requires that all private investors in PA perform EIA as part of the development process.
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 31
UWA has not yet systematically integrated EIA into the GMPs. For example, MFNP GMP in￾cludes an Environmental Considerations Report that considers possible impacts and mitigation
measures but does not substitute for activity-specific reviews, as appropriate. LMNP GMP does
not include this section.
4.2.4 Public information and education
The original purpose of the overall PIE communication strategy was to raise public awareness
and propagate the EAPs. This activity was intended to support UWA, NEMA, and ECOTRUST,
as well as the targeted Districts. However, project refocusing meant that the scope of coverage
and depth of PIE was reduced. With cross-sectoral environmental management activities scaled
back, the general need to support national-level training in this subject was no longer pressing,
and the comprehensive information and education support was scaled back to a more limited
support function for the pilot implementation activities described in Section 3.0.
Development of PIE Program. PIE task forces were formed in all four Districts. They drew
membership from DEAP, EIA/EA facilitators, and District Information Officers. A workshop
was held to review E/NR PIE activities and strategy. PIE training design, planning, and materi￾als were completed in the first quarter of 2002. The materials cover the basic communication
strategies (e.g., theater, posters, radio, etc.). The training modules cover information generation,
message formulation, research and analysis, information dissemination, and reviews. Research
was carried out in each District to assess media and messages. Posters, radio spots, and village￾theater emerged as most suitable for information dissemination in the Districts. The workshop
made plans to take the training to Parish levels. A planning meeting in Mbarara recommended
that for a start PIE be integrated into the pilots of the four Districts:
ß Kisoro: Management and conservation of lakeshore wetlands in Muhora Subcounty.
ß Rukungiri: Increasing tree cover in Nyarushagyeme Subcounty.
ß Bushenyi: Soil and water conservation in landslide-prone areas of Nyabubaare, Kamuhanga,
and Ryeru Subcounties.
ß Kanungu: Managing problem animals in Kihiihi and Nyamirama Subcounties.
The use of local FM radios, music, and drama groups are increasing. In Kisoro, Bushenyi, and
Kanungu local people were actively listening to the radio program and several requests for spe￾cific topics are beginning to come in.
Behavior is changing. The PIE training helped diversify communication strategies at the Dis￾trict and lower levels and has greatly increased the catchments areas to beyond the Districts and
pilot areas. Several environmental cases received by the DEO are related to the messages aired
through the radio and drama programs. The supported pilots have taken root; there is notable
increase in the demand especially for tree seedlings cross the Districts. In Kisoro, local people
have implemented the by-law to leave at leased 3 m of uncultivated land around the protected
lake. They suspended fishing from the restocked lake until the stock has built up.
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 32
4.3 CONCLUSIONS
ß PIE, EIA, and PEAT training all promoted interpersonal and department communication,
which increased commitment to achieve a common goal: environment awareness.
ß Training helped improve recognition of the Environment Department. DEOs are now rec￾ognized, and although the operational budgets remain small, the multidisciplinary ap￾proach to training enlightened officers in the other departments now who freely collaborate.
Training thus contributed to mainstreaming. Departments have accepted to integrate certain
environmental issues in their core business. The presence of CARE–COBS Support Project
coordinators reinforced this tendency.
ß Increase in the number of locally initiated environmental projects. Several CBOs in the Dis￾tricts have refocused their activities to address environmental issues. In Kisoro for example,
five CBOs attempted to develop environmentally focused proposals. And although not all
received funding from ECOTRUST, the interest is there.
ß The multidisciplinary team added value to the facilitation and learning process. Both the
facilitators and trainees learned. It was important and morale-boosting for individual facili￾tators to go out in teams and channel their energies toward a single goal. And although they
had their specific specialties, these too were channeled to inform the learning process.
ß Although progress has been made, it is not possible to talk about impact or continuity for
many of the outputs. The EIA/EA processes started slowly, stalled for a while for some
components, and then rushed toward the end. As a result, most of the outputs have been
delivered late, leaving little time for implementation and lesson learning.
ß The isolation of PIE from the other awareness processes renders its good intended function
less visible. Integration of related outputs targeted at the same audience need to happen
while at the drawing board, to avoid being derailed for personal motives.
ß If major strategic changes must occur during the life of a multistakeholder project, commu￾nication and joint analysis of implications and possible mitigation should be a must.
ß Institutional differences and perceptions are important for the success of interinstitutional
deliberations. In the case of COBS, the assumption that MUIENR and NEMA would be in￾terested and be accepted by all actors as lead institutions for CEMT and certification of EIA,
without clear understanding (or taking into account) of the institutional cultures and prefer￾ences of potential partners. Many of the delays in the progress on some of the outputs that
were eliminated stem from institutional culture and preferences that should have been dealt
with early in the Project life.
ß There is urgent need for environmentally related income-generating activities. Environ￾mental awareness has been raised, and people want to do something about the current state
of their environments. However, there is great limitation in terms of alternatives and means.
For instance, the small and fragmented land holdings in Kisoro make tree planting, use of
organic manure, and practicing fallow difficult. The poor increasingly face tougher choices
with regard to current environmental mitigation measures.
RESULTS MODULE 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 33
4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PIE, EIA/EA, and general awareness training and campaigns should be integrated into a
single coherent package thus reducing duplication of efforts and resources. The initial re￾quirement for a central material development, support, coordination, and revision of mes￾sages is needed to ensure quality, cross learning, and linkage to the national level.
2. There is need for continual technical and financial support to the processes. Most of the
PEAT happened in the last year of COBS support. And although considerable capacity has
been built, there is great need for continued technical and financial support until such a time
as sustainability is ensured. The in-service training and PEAT should not be a one-off event.
There are changes in political leaders, transfer of technical officers, and scaling-up of good
practices to other areas, all of which require more in-service events for environmental issues
to remain key in the development of Uganda. Training will keep facilitators at the cutting￾edge of environmental issues.
3. A support agency like CARE needs to help local government in the four Districts devise a
mechanism of tapping and effectively benefiting from incoming development support.
Agencies like AFRICARE that may need technical expertise and already mobilized commu￾nities for support and implementation will require guidance on where and through which
institutions they should implement environmental projects. This calls for proper and proac￾tive planning on the part of local leader in the District to provide guidance to new investors
and to ensure that already mobilized communities are supported for implementation, and
that there is equitable access to development opportunities by all communities.
4. There is need for translating and interpreting of educational materials into languages local
people understand and in which they can easily express themselves.
5. Future programming including SO7 should employ strategies that link both the technical
and political wings of the District.
6. There should be a proper accreditation of EIA/EA practitioners. Handing over manuals and
other resources without facilitating and ensuring proper integration is not enough to ensure
continuity. NEMA should take the post-COBS lead (this reinforces the human resource to ef￾fectively advocate and facilitate sound environmental planning) and ensure that there are
standards and quality control measures for EIA/EA for all practitioners.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 34
SECTION 5.0
RM4: SPECIAL BIODIVERSITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
5.1 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED
This Results Module is not technically or functionally equivalent to the others in the sense that
activities undertaken responded on an ad hoc basis to conservation-related support needs of
SO2 (and SO7) that USAID identified over the life of the COBS Support activity. There are no
classic results, indicators, nor targets against which to assess performance. From an evaluation
standpoint, the team documented only what was accomplished and attempted to assess
whether this structured mechanism for flexibility functioned as intended. ARD–COBS appeared
responsive in carrying out requested studies and activities. The particular staff at the client in￾stitution was no longer in-country, but there was no apparent dissatisfaction with the results of
using this mechanism for safeguarding flexibility
Specific outputs under RM4 ARD–COBS included:
ß Consultation to produce a Shea Marketing Study as an input to a program that USAID did
not develop further.
ß A threats and opportunities study (input to ISP).
ß Examination of environmental aspects to nonconditional sector grants to Subcounties to as￾sist in the transfer of COBS Support approaches to Uganda’s programs for supporting de￾centralized rural development.
ß Consideration and consultation over potential support to the forestry sector.
ß Support to ECOTRUST.
Institutional support to ECOTRUST provided an exception to the general tendency to use this
component on a punctual basis. ECOTRUST’s need was identified early and addressed over the
life of the contract, almost as an additional stand-alone component. It is discussed below. As
part of managing the final-year budget reductions, new activities were not undertaken, but di￾rect technical support from the ARD–COBS in-country team continued. Interestingly, ECO￾TRUST, which had been the beneficiary of earlier support, found its position reversed as it be￾gan providing operational support to COBS Support Project initiatives such as plan
implementation in Districts and in QEPA. Moreover, as an indication of satisfaction, with the
technical assistance COBS Support Project provided, ECOTRUST directly contracted the same
principle institutional support consultant to continue working with the organization.
5.2 ECOTRUST AND THE COBS SUPPORT PROJECT
5.2.1 Problem statement
Under the USAID strategy, one of the challenges was to successfully achieve the graduation and
transformation of an existing SO2 GMU into an autonomous grant-making NGO, ECOTRUST.
The transition process was put forth in three phases, progressing from a first phase of punctual
funding for formal separation, a second phase of institutional capacity-building, and a third
phase of continuing activity based on success of the first two phases. ARD–COBS sought to en￾sure that USAID was confident to establish a cooperative agreement with an independent
RESULTS MODULE 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 35
ECOTRUST. Independence implied financial diversification, in itself implying a need for ECO￾TRUST to evolve to the point of soliciting adequate and diversified funding.
5.2.2 Findings and Analysis
ARD provided critical technical assistance, institutional guidance, and mentoring that was in￾strumental in ECOTRUST surviving a difficult transition from USAID GMU to a distinct, legally
independent registered Ugandan NGO. In practice and in actual operation, ECOTRUST contin￾ues to be closely associated with USAID activities and is seen as funding vehicle for USAID
projects. The organization is aware of the need to diversify its institutional support base, but its
success in raising funds beyond USAID’s backing has been limited to date.
The evaluation team found that ARD–COBS has invested substantial energy and funding of
technical assistance to help ECOTRUST overcome the two most important obstacles to obtain￾ing this viability: establish a clear institutional identity and diversify its sources of funding and
support. ARD responded with commitment to the Transitional Task Force request to step in and
assist ECOTRUST toward its vision of becoming an endowed and diversely supported founda￾tion poised to further its autonomous environment, natural resource, and sustainable develop￾ment agenda.
This support, geared especially to meeting Phase I transition benchmarks, consisted of:
ß Start-up support: Orientation with Board, Action Plan workshop.
ß Strategic Planning and Team building: Recruitment staff development.
ß Capacity-building: Administrative, technical, and financial management systems developed
with medium-term ARD technical assistance; business plan (Ayee 2001) and grants manual.
ß Facilitating ECOTRUST partnerships: Introduction to NGO community in southwestern
Uganda, integration with DEAP process at Subcounty level, technical assistance to define
parameters of national park plan implementation.
ARD technical assistance to ECOTRUST was limited to a final consultancy with the cut in ARD–
COBS funding, but institutional strengthening continues through joint support to common
partners working to conserve biodiversity and improve natural resource management in
USAID’s COBS target regions. As an indication of the value of the assistance, ECOTRUST used
its own monies to finance the same STTA that ARD–COBS had made available.
ECOTRUST’s quest to establish autonomy is jeopardized as USAID shifts direction. ECO￾TRUST is expected to respond under the Phase II cooperative agreement that provides the bulk
of ECOTRUST’s funding. Much of the new USAID ISP only mutedly corresponds to ECOTRUST’s
vision and foundation documents, a concern that has already surfaced within the organization.
The evaluation team observed that GoU partners now perceive the organization as the
funding body for certain persistent elements of the COBS Support Project’s original mandate for
implementation of the DEAPs, SEAPs, PEAPs, GMPs, and AOPs. The refocusing and budget
cuts that affected ARD implementation support to targeted Districts and PA resulted, at a late
stage of COBS Support Project, in a subset of proposed outputs being shifted from ARD con￾tract to ECOTRUST cooperative agreement funding. Follow-through on certain COBS Support
RESULTS MODULE 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 36
Project activities is important both to achieving key SO2 results and in maintaining USAID’s
integrity in the eyes of its Ugandan partners, but none are finding the funding process smooth.
Some, especially central GoU partners including NEMA and UWA, express the sentiment that
USAID has placed Uganda’s young Environmental Conservation Trust in what appears as an
untenable and inappropriate intermediary position.
Finally, as external interest in ECOTRUST as vehicle for establishing land trusts appeared
significant, ARD–COBS worked with ECOTRUST to identify and enlist World Land Trust as a
potential partner and arrange for a staff member to serve as a ARD–COBS consultant in this
area. Substantive guidance was provided. A partnering MOU is in preparation that would rein￾force the land acquisition and conservation management functions as ECOTRUST matures and
such need expands. They executed an initial action venture with the World Wildlife Federation
in the Rwenzori area. The issue and challenge parallel those of other ECOTRUST programs—a
dearth of field-level organizations with whom to partner. Just as it is not in ECOTRUST’s ca￾pacity nor interest to directly implement pilot programs, it is not (at least currently) in their in￾terest to manage or comanage purchased lands.
5.3 CONCLUSION
ECOTRUST, building on its ARD–COBS support, has established itself a unique niche with the
mandate, personnel, and systems that give it potential to catalyze environmentally sustainable
development across a wide range of potential intervention partners.
Despite progress, ECOTRUST’s institutional viability is still fragile, and if its grants funding
becomes too narrowly linked to USAID’s SO7 agenda, its ability to develop independently may
be delayed or undermined.
ECOTRUST’s role almost as stand-in for USAID (by funding COBS Support Project DEAP
pilots and GMP implementation) risks reinforcing the perception of ECOTRUST’s integration
with and dependency on USAID.
To properly diversify its base, a proactive approach to marketing several types of services
(grant administration, NGO program implementation and capacity-building, land acquisition,
etc.) needs to be adopted.
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
USAID, in as direct a manner as possible, should provide ECOTRUST with marketing and
business development support to assist in a necessary diversification of funding support and
donor base.
ECOTRUST needs to “internalize” the support role it has taken on through its joint and
post-COBS Support Project implementation, using the opportunity to better profile its identity
and operating modalities with respect to local government, park management, and national￾level institutions.
SO7 should include provision for pass-through grants to central and decentralized govern￾ment and parastatal organizations that have the capacity to maintain segregated accounts. Po￾tential local NGO partners are limited, and require more capacity-building than ECOTRUST—
as a young institution itself—is capable of providing. Forging partnerships with local govern-
RESULTS MODULE 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 37
s a young institution itself—is capable of providing. Forging partnerships with local govern￾ment may be the best way to engage CBOs and civil society.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 38
SECTION 6.0
RESULTS MODULE 5: ACTIVITY COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION
6.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Results Module 5 is not really a Results Module, but the manner in which the development assis￾tance was organized and administered has much to do with the level of achievement of results.
This section of the report thus assesses certain characteristics of Project management, of teaming
arrangements, or relationships with partners and of oversight and technical coordination from the
USAID side. Of particular interest is an effort to distinguish some effects of the USAID refocusing
that took place early in the Project (referred to repeatedly throughout the text).
6.2 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
6.2.1 Project management unit and organization
Project Management was effective. The COBS Support Project Chief of Party (CoP) heads the Proj￾ect Management Unit (PMU) operates from Kampala, but provided substantial autonomy to
technical assiatnce in each of the major support areas—ECOTRUST, DEAP process, UWA in￾stitutional development. Routine administration operated in the background to facilitate devel￾opment objectives as observed in the approval of the Kanungu DEAP and in the stakeholder
review of the Lake Mburo National Park GMP. Field reports, periodic reports, consultant re￾cruitment, and document production all favored smooth Project implementation (other than an
“allowances” issue that took some time to resolve).
For the DEAP process, COBS Support Project’s field team of full-time Project staff, led by the
Environment Planning Technical Adviser (EPTA), is based in the Districts and supported on
one occasion by short-term consultants. Effective delegation of responsibility encouraged the
field team, led by the EPTA, to significantly leverage a limited field presence in the DEAP proc￾ess. The COBS Support Project DEAP Coordinators (DEAP/Cs) who oversee the DEAP process
in each District are highly motivated and independent. They were able to translate this non￾directive management style into an empowering environment within the Districts themselves.
This contributed to engaging staff at progressively lower levels, and this is what tended to es￾tablish ownership rapidly but profoundly.
In partner institutions receiving technical assistance such as UWA and ECOTRUST, Project
management was responsive and sensitive to the organizations’ needs and concerns. At the
level of direct implementation support, the DEAP/Cs and UWA planning unit staff were closely
integrated with their immediate colleagues more than with Project structures. UWAPU–COBS
planners were recruited from the outset to operate as UWA “staff,” which made their eventual
integration easy. In some cases, consultant selection such as for UWA EIA guidelines was left to
the recipient organization. In other cases, the ARD–CARE team drew on its collective resources
to identify the appropriate outside resource.
The ARD–CARE partnership was successful and brought in strengths from both organiza￾tions collegially and in a noncompetitive team context. For example, ARD had a lead role on PA
planning, but CARE contributed substantially to the transition to plan implementation, largely
through related projects such as the Integrated Lake Management Project (DfID), the QEPA
RESULTS MODULE 5
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 39
Community Conservation Project (DANIDA), and others. CARE’s involvement in other non￾COBS activities helped clarify the challenges to mainstreaming environment in the overall de￾velopment agenda and facilitated two-way communication with the broader debate on local
government and decentralization. CARE’s institutional presence provided some oversight and
information-sharing on broader rural development concerns. Their use of “visioning” as a
planning concept, which attracted such interest in the DEAP/SEAP process, resulted from a
timely and pertinent contribution of a CARE consultant (Lightfoot 2001); it seems to be one of
the tools encouraging District chairmen and technical committees to adopt ARD–CARE ap￾proaches in sectors other than the environment.
Contractual management issues between ARD home office management and CARE never
were substantial enough to affect harmonious relations in day-to-day implementation. CARE
administrative and financial processing delays sometimes frustrated ARD’s ability to make
forward projections. Both CARE and ARD discuss the collaboration in positive terms and, on
the basis of their mutual satisfaction with the partnership, continue to pursue other opportuni￾ties jointly. The only significant issue detected related to CARE’s unwillingness to staff up com￾pletely for the DEAP program until the USAID refocusing exercise had clarified the terms of the
(eventually) revised TO (see below).
Relations with Ugandan institutions were generally good. In the EAP activities, the team en￾countered only positive comments on the COBS Support team. Several went so far as to say “we
are COBS, so of course we like COBS.” This support grew out of the Project’s explicit decision to
work through existing institutions despite challenges—and there were some. Ugandan partner
institutions are in a stronger position to continue fulfilling responsibilities in the types of pro￾grams that fell under the COBS purview (such as the mountain gorilla conservation support).
Insufficient integration of ARD–COBS and District work calendars and travel provisions. Although
the Project’s support model ensured that the Project was integrated into the District structures,
the “rhythm of work” of the Project may appear to have, at certain times, been constrained by
differences in organizational “cultures.” There were complaints from the District officials in the
LTF about housing them in expensive hotels and paying them small allowances, until it was
agreed that the LTF members would have to find their own accommodation while in areas such
as Kampala. During Q11 (1 April –30 June 2002), the implementation of DEAP-related activities
was delayed by unforeseen circumstances, such as the unavailability of local government staff
to work on previously planned PIA and PIE. Although commitment to these activities was
planned with the local government staff, many had to address other District priorities, espe￾cially the updating of the DDP for the financial year 2002/3, which required the preparation of
budget framework papers, annual work plans, and budgets. Local government staff support for
completion of local elections and establishment of the new District councils also consumed sig￾nificant amount of time when the COBS Project would was also looking for it.
The two central government partners, NEMA and UWA, notwithstanding preference for di￾rect funding, appreciated the COBS effort. The UWAPU staff, as most direct recipients of assis￾tance, was most particularly positive. At the higher level, relations between UWA and donors
including COBS rose and fell over the Project; at one time, the UWA’s decisions disrupted the
planned flow of technical assistance and capacity building. With new leadership, the focus is on
RESULTS MODULE 5
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 40
accomplishments, consolidating progress, and preparing to shift to ECOTRUST follow-on sup￾port and seeking wider post-COBS support for GMP implementation. It is a smooth closeout.
In NEMA’s case, although there are no major issues, involvement over the life of Project has
been less than anticipated. Much of this is related to USAID-level issues discussed below. The
key outstanding issue is the degree to which some of the COBS Support Project accomplish￾ments will be recognized, adopted, and replicated across non-COBS Districts.
6.2.2 USAID strategic refocusing: Implications for the COBS Support Project
The PFE SOW asks what activities were not accomplished that were beyond the control of the
contractor. Clearly, the most important factor was the decision made almost simultaneously
with Project start up to redefine its strategic focus. This entailed greater concern with field-level
impacts, including household incomes under environmentally sustainable agricultural systems.
The impact of this shift in strategic thinking and planning at the Mission level, or refocusing,
produced substantial changes in the COBS Support TO, which at that time, had been recently
signed. Moreover, ARD’s proposal was attached to the original TO; thus, implied contractual
obligations were inconsistent with the modified mandate. From the contractor’s perspective,
delays by USAID in formally modifying the TO created frustration and uncertainty.
Refocusing’s major direct impact on the COBS Support Project can be summarized:
ß Elimination of the original RM3, which would have supported integrating environmental
management concerns into a wide range of national-level branches of government through
ELUs.
ß More concern with GMP implementation.
ß Reduction in the number and geographic coverage of District DEAPS.
ß Greater attention to field partners and less focus on central-level institutions.
ß Confusion in ARD–CARE about their eventual role, prompting CARE to delay start-up of
some activities.
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the PFE validates the capacity-building principles used by the ARD–CARE team in im￾plementing the COBS Support Project as being exceptionally efficient at building ownership
and transferring processes and practices that will affect the environment and people’s well￾being over time.
By and large, the potential substantive benefits of refocusing appear to be offset by the asso￾ciated confusion, uncertainty, and interruption in programming experienced by partner organi￾zations, the SO2 extended team, and to ARD–COBS and other implementing partners. The pro￾cess extended over a significant portion of the implementation period and was characterized by
delays after start-up, uncertainty over work plans, and other factors. (This evaluation did not
assess the overall SO2, but such a broader retrospective SO assessment might be useful for the
integration of SO2 concerns into the activity programming under the new SO7.)
RESULTS MODULE 5
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 41
The PFE did sense a reluctance of the Project to take on certain implementation activities
earlier and with greater conviction prior to a finalized TO amendment. This could have mini￾mized the sense that there is a gap with COBS closing down; but to some extent, the short time
frame of the TO limited what program elements could be responsibly undertaken.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 42
7.0 SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT
The PFE was not intended to be a comprehensive effort to measure the institutional capacities of
the key recipients of the project’s investments. The preceding sections documented in some de￾tail the specific changes introduced by this capacity-building effort. In this section, we attempt
to assess the sustainability of these organizational changes and their likely impact. At the high￾est level, the COBS Program sought to “conserve critical ecosystems to sustain biological diversity
and to enhance benefits to society.” Achieving this strategic objective is dependent on the ARD–
COBS-supported institutions carrying forward with the necessary financial and human
resources, thus continuing to develop and implement the plans that lead to environmentally
positive changes in people’s behaviors. This, in turn, produces the biophysical changes that
ultimately add up to protect critical ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain.
7.1 SUSTAINABILITY
The UWA has committed to staffing a planning unit that the evaluation argues is already car￾rying out autonomously, the system of GMP that it jointly developed with COBS support. The
system has been adopted not only for “COBS” PAs, but for the country’s entire wildlife PA
system. Given the 10-year cycle for plan renewal, the UWAPU human resources are adequate to
continue this task. All financial responsibility for basic funding of this unit has been internal￾ized. As tourism and UWA revenues increase over time, the unit can be expected to achieve
more independence from donor program support. At least as important in terms of sustainable
changes in human resources, is UWA’s system-wide adoption of AOPs, which engage all im￾portant staff throughout the PA System and at headquarters. The AOP set of tools increases
UWA’s efficiency and allows programs to expand or contract based on available funds.
Through NEMA, COBS Support Project engaged local government and its development and
civil society partners to achieve comprehensive planning and progress in mainstreaming envi￾ronmental concerns in the COBS target Districts of southwestern Uganda. It is clear the human
resources, both political and technical, within Districts, Subcounties, and Parishes have been
engaged in a participatory process that links inextricably with the overall move toward decen￾tralization in the country. It is difficult for the team to assess the financial sustainability of the
EAP process since it is so integrally bound with larger issues of District and local finance. It is
safe to say that financial resources available to Districts are significant and varied. The integra￾tion of environment into the overall District development plans bodes well for sustained fi￾nancing for program implementation that leads to environmental conservation practices, even
in the heavily populated portions of the region. Integrating environment with other sectors
through EAPs paves the way for both GoU and donor programs to continue program financing
to committed human resource base. Africare’s recent fusion of the productive and natural re￾source components of its Food Security Initiative provides an example.
The PFE characterizes the EAP service delivery model as remarkably successful, and it is
recognized as such by NEMA. Without the Project structure in place, it is difficult to gauge how
well the model will be transferred to other Districts, despite its stature as the basis for a “Best
Practices” guide to DEAP implementation. Some continued shepherding of the DEAP model is
called for if the COBS investment is to be maximized. The fact that CARE–Uganda has a long￾standing presence in the country may be helpful in this regard.
SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 43
The participatory planning and visioning approaches that attracted such interest across
various sectors at the District level also pose a development challenge related to sustainability.
The process was so engaging and participatory that to carry out an equivalent process for each
sector could well overload the planning functions of local government, not to mention the con￾stituents’ patience and capacity to absorb. It is difficult to imagine, for example, that the Parish
walks could be repeated for each productive sector. Relative to mainstreaming, further attention
to cross-sectoral efficiencies in finance and human resources could enhance sustainability.
The evaluation team noted variance in the planning cycles of its two core areas: DEAPs on
3-year rotation and GMPs on a 10-year cycle. It is quite likely that additional sectors impose yet
other variance in their requirements for periodic planning. This issue was beyond the scope of
the evaluation, but it suggests that a better understanding of the potentials for harmonization
would be useful in general, and in particular, for USAID’s local government and upcoming SO7
program activities. Also, it is not clear that the three-year review requirement of the NES for
DEAP implies that the same fundamental planning exercise developed and engendered under
the COBS Support Project would be necessary. Much will depend on an assessment of the next
years of implementation and of the utility of the M&E system that was put into place. Perhaps
there is scope for a “DEAP-lite” process that could carry the commitment to environment and
EAP implementation beyond the three-year period. Again, this might enhance the long-term
impact of the COBS’ DEAP model.
NEMA’s role in DEAP sustainability is important. The types of issues raised by the above
questions about the DEAP process, however, are properly the subject of national-level dialogue
as policies, planning, and integration need to be agreed upon across parties. With the refocus￾ing, COBS Support Project own capacity-building efforts affected NEMA more indirectly than
envisioned in the original Task Order. COBS Support Project thus did not substantially alter
NEMA administrative and support systems, its organizational culture, nor the resources, hu￾man and financial, with which NEMA pursues its objectives. What the project did do was arm
NEMA with an improved set of technical tools both for DEAP preparation and for advancing its
mandate for EA/EIA. NEMA appreciates these and is putting them to use. The office itself de￾pends heavily on external funding, so some issues of long-term sustainability rely on underly￾ing assumptions to the COBS program that go beyond project review but continue to be rele￾vant to future programming of development assistance. In NEMA’s view, for SO7
implementation not to build on identified priorities would be a “disaster.”
ECOTRUST has benefited in all key areas of organizational development: administrative and
support systems (including staff recruitment); technical (including program planning and service
delivery); organizational culture (clarity of vision, work environment, external relations), and re￾sources (human and financial). In a sense, ECOTRUST is poised to provide the institutional link
to consolidate the advances in UWA and the Districts. The hand-over of certain ongoing pro￾grams represents a challenge to ECOTRUST to put these gains from ARD–COBS technical as￾sistance to practice. ECOTRUST success increases the likelihood that resources for PA and
DEAP planning and plan implementation will be mobilized. This type of success would vali￾date ECOTRUST and increase the opportunities for it to move beyond the overreliance on
USAID discussed in Section 6.0.
SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 44
7.2 IMPACT
The evaluation team was asked to assess impact in terms of whether the beneficiaries are using
the skills and knowledge they have gained. We have attempted to document capacity-building
effectiveness in the individual RM sections, and note examples of skills being applied. Below we
have isolated a number of additional examples that particularly point to direct and indirect
changes in ENR practices that are associated with Project activities. Attribution for the eventual
impacts will never be certain, so it is important to underscore the basis for these “people-level”
impacts. The underlying factors are presented to lay the basis for describing what are essentially
a set of “before-and-after” comparisons.
1. Soundness of interventions. The ARD–COBS Project always tested their instruments and pi￾loted implementation activities before any were rolled out across the target Districts. This
process of field-testing guidelines, manuals, and procedures and piloting of implementation
activities was, although time-consuming, a vital and good iterative process that allowed the
identification of weaknesses and lessons’ learned before going out to full implementation.
Second, because it involved several Parishes and Subcounties working together in the DEAP
process, it enabled the different Parishes and Subcounties to organize themselves along
common themes and activities that not only helped improve their livelihoods, but also
brought people together. This coming together is a solid basis for supporting development
interventions, and makes possible opportunities for external funding, especially from donors.
2. Efficient grass-roots strategy. The DEAP process was reviewed and improved, which reduced
amount of time and resources spent in the EAP process. The participatory and consultative
approach process that started at the Parish obtained a buy-in at higher levels on the impor￾tance of participation.
3. Built ownership to enhance impact. The participatory DEAP process not only cultivated techni￾cal and political commitment to the DEAP process from the local government, it also in￾creased environmental awareness at all levels in the District and generated massive data
that later served as a point of reference for higher level EAP, including the SEAPs and
DEAPs. The DEAP process, which was supported by COBS Support Project, provided Par￾ish, Subcounty, and District officials in the target Districts with useful planning experiences
that they are using in their general development planning processes through other depart￾ments/sectors in the Districts. EAPs are already guiding sustainable use of natural resources,
which will contribute to reduction of pressure on sensitive assets. In Kisoro for example,
convergence of DEAP and DDP led to banning of fishing activities on Lake Chahafi follow￾ing restocking the lake with fish fries provided under a development grant to the Murora
Subcounty through the DDP.
4. Built capacity to ensure sustainability. COBS Support Project activities were appropriately in￾tegrated in the structures of the target Districts. A formal request for the targets Districts to
provide office space for COBS Support Project District DEAP teams was made by NEMA in
2000, to which the CAOs duly obliged. In Bushenyi, Kisoro, and Rukungiri, the Project
helped refurbish office premises that were shared with the DEOs. The District staff, espe￾cially the DEOs and members of the DTFs, drawn from the DTPC, took the lead in mobili-
SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 45
zation of local councils and the communities in the preparation of EAPs and later imple￾mentation of EAP priorities. The project and its field staff took a back-stage and maintained
a very low visibility. No parallel structures were created, since the Project preferred to work
through existing structures. This has been a more enduring capacity-building process,
which will benefit the target Districts for a long time even after the Project has been closed.
Withdrawal from the District toward the end of the Project will not hurt continuation of
DEAP implementation activities already underway, because technical and management ca￾pacity as well as financial resources are adequate (since the COBS through ECOTRUST has
expressed willingness to follow through on activities already underway). Additional EAP
priorities in target Districts are likely to be affected because support to Districts to build
fund-raising capacity was not adequately built.
5. Motivated its partners. The sense of ownership of the activities that the COBS Support Project
was very high. Both the Subcounties and Districts were committed to further implementa￾tion after the Project closed. Pilot implementation activities had been selected because they
presented opportunities for the District and Subcounties to leverage funding from their own
local sources. The impact of the Project will remain long after it closes.
People-level impacts have begun to appear, as evident in the following anecdotal examples.
Advocacy and civil pressure for environmental issues, although still nascent, increased through
the Project’s accomplishments.
ß Communities begin to advocate for proper application of EIA, review, and mitigation. In Kisoro one
investor was trying to extract chalk along the Kako River in Busanza Parish. On the basis of
ARD–COBS awareness training, local people were concerned that this would pollute the
river. Members of the community contacted the DEO and the program facilitators. This led
to NEMA officially asking the investor to carry out a proper EIA and mitigation measures.
ß Bushenyi had over 30 recent cases for environmental review covering a wide range of issues
such as petrol stations, wetlands drainage, coffee factory, and bush burning. Some farmers
have approached the DEO to ask for alternative land-clearing strategy for millet and sor￾ghum, which they believe need ash (hence burning) to grow.
ß Demand for law enforcement. Several villages are demanding that wetlands by-law be devel￾oped and enforced. In one Subcounty (Bugongi), the local people blocked all the drainage ca￾nals of the main swamp in the community that had been drained for agriculture. Local people
in Bushenyi tried to enforce the by-law to refilling murrum pits after major excavation.
ß Communities are beginning to cooperate with PA management. For example, they have begun to
report concessionaires involved in illegal activities (Kyambura). Boundary markers and
limits are being formally respected in many areas and, where contested (Lake Mburo, some
sections of the QEPA boundary), new institutions are being used to address conflicts.
ß The training has strengthened the position of the local Parish-level environmental committees. Ini￾tially, the environment office had no clear roles and responsibilities. A lot has changed as a
result of the environmental awareness training. The office has gained respect as more and
more cases are referred to them, trainees have a clearer perception of their roles and respon-
SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 46
sibilities, and, most important, they are facilitating several local interventions. Because there
were no funds involved, the majority of the local officers have been women. There was
some concern reported that the next elections will see more men standing for membership
on local environmental committees. This suggests both an area of concern from a gender
standpoint, as well as the enhanced prestige and importance of the office and the commu￾nity view of environmental issues.
ß Local participation in community meetings has improved. More and more people turn up and
actively engage in the discussions and raise environmental concerns. Several people have
expressed concerns about the relaxation in environmental laws, and appreciation of the
roles of local government to enforce by-laws has improved. A herbalist in Kanungu raised a
concern about the depletion of the wild medicinal plants and the need to preserve some eco￾systems.
ß Trainers of training and other involved government officials are themselves local role models as a re￾sult of internalizing the subject matter. One extension worker in Bushenyi dreaded field￾work because he was not confident in communicating. After the training, he gained confi￾dence: “I used to dictate but now we employ participatory approaches and it is a learning
process for all involved.” An agricultural extension worker in Bushenyi used to overstock,
leading to overgrazing. After the training, he sold off some animals and realizes that those
that remain look better. In addition, he has started implementing the soil conservation
measures.
ß Increased demand for inputs toward environmental mitigation/restoration measures. In Rukungiri,
all Parish headquarters are to plant trees as example to households, and all development
plans have tree planting as a priority. The demand for tree seedlings in Kanungu has in￾creased to the extent that one trained officer who had a coffee nursery switched his own
private nursery to seedlings of species used in the reforestation activities.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 47
8.0 LESSONS LEARNED
By evaluating what was and what was not accomplished, the PFE attempts to capture some of
the salient lessons learned. We expect that they will retain their relevance moving forward as
the SO7 expands the involvement of civil society and the private sector in the conservation and
use of Western Uganda’s critical and biologically rich landscapes.
ß Focusing on opportunities, not constraints, contributed immensely to the Project’s level of suc￾cess. In particular, vision-based planning led to rapid and widespread stakeholder buy-in.
Visioning was used at the subregional level to instill a sense of positive outcome toward
which actors saw the landscape evolving at the conclusion of successful implementation.
Actions then become steps toward this endpoint. SO7 will grapple with similar challenges of
local land use such as erosion and watershed degradation. Such exercises can be tailored to
multiple levels from farmer and village organizations to national strategic and policy efforts.
ß Overall program coordination is critical to success. For effective partnership and collaboration,
institutional cultures need to be analyzed and any negative implications dealt with early in
the partnership. Monitoring coordination structures such as an extended SO team should be
ensured. A lack of clarity in the Project’s mandate created delays and uncertainty that could
have been avoided by better communication and a formalized structure of setting and af￾firming operating parameters for the Project. Field activities under SO7 will likely involve
groupings of distinct projects, government and non-government partners, providers of
technology or services, and entrepreneurs. This complexity suggests a need for coordinating
structures at several levels will need to be developed. Clear contractual responsibilities and
approved monitoring plans should underlie efforts to achieve interinstitutional synergies.
ß Building the institutions is key to long-term success. COBS focused on strengthening govern￾ment institutions and planning. With the attention given to achieving higher level (bio￾physical and income) results, institutional development is often seen as an intermediate
process and is given reduced attention in development efforts. COBS Support Project dem￾onstrated the importance of creating an enabling institutional environment. It showed that
by focusing on core functions, significant change can be engendered with limited resources
and in a relatively short period of time. Sustainable capacity-building activities for envi￾ronment management are difficult to assess, but absent enabling policy and regulatory and
technical support institutions, private sector initiatives may not achieve intended conserva￾tion objectives. SO7 appears to make limited provision for support to government, despite
recognizing the important residual role that only government institutions can play. COBS
Support Project experience would suggest that funding government participation in the
natural resource enterprises and partnerships can both enhance success and build on the re￾cently developed capacities.
· Avoiding parallel structures helps transfer ownership and makes a real difference. COBS Support
Project integrating of Project activities into District technical structures can help to shield
Project facilities and resources from pressures for favors by politicians, and prevent them
from disappearing with termination of a project. The buy-in and ownership of protected
area and local government partners under COBS is a direct outgrowth of encouraging these
LESSONS LEARNED
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 48
institutions to directly implement the program and equipping them with the necessary justi￾fiable resources. As SO7 puts structures into place, there is a real risk that private extension,
NGO development, CBO/farmer organizational capacity-building, and technical imple￾menters will create a labyrinth of organizational complexity in the field. Widespread vesting
in the District planning and oversight can both reduce confusion of responsibility and en￾hance sustainability.
· Formulated plans mean nothing if they are not implemented. The gap (real or perceived) between
plans and implementation can be reduced or eliminated by linking them as two points on a
continuum. With COBS, plans are in place and people are ready to go, but resources are
perceived as limited, in part because of expectations for implementation were seen as se￾quential and not integrated in an ongoing manner with a funding and implementation ra￾tionale. This dichotomy can be minimized by creating a sense of continuity as programming
moves from COBS to SO7 and from the ARD contract to a series of bridging actions to a set
of new contractors and grantees.
· Respecting the role of government paves the way for government to participate in development as a
partner. Readiness to link with civil society and the private sector to create partnerships was
demonstrated in the SEAP pilots. In some respects, Subcounty and Parish government is
more a CBO than a government entity, and gives rise to programming concerns. Should, for
example, SEAP implementation target established formal NGOs, or look for more encom￾passing CBOs at the grass-roots level to implement actions identified through participatory
processes? Pilot-project implementation suggests scope for innovative partnerships where
government and CBOs acting together can minimize or at least reduce the need for and cost
of intermediary NGOs. With performance-based programming, using Parish and Sub￾county government could offer an efficient means for achieving changes in resource man￾agement practices that are consistent with improved rural livelihoods.
· Continuity is important to achieving E/NR management results. One of the reasons COBS Sup￾port Project was able to catalyze institutional change so widely is because the Project team
was able to build on existing momentum, such as identification of best practices for the
DEAP planning process, APE efforts to improve management of PAs by strengthening
planning, field efforts to identify promising technologies, and organizational arrangements.
Follow-on activities should look for ways to bring out continuity by building linking activi￾ties to the plans, vision, and institutions that developed momentum under ARD–COBS and
that continue to operate in western Uganda. Some specifics are mentioned above and under
the specific discussions of results modules.
· Scale interventions to appropriate level of community/landscape/administrative organization. Con￾sider “special-use Districts.” UWA should call a donors conference to coordinate otherwise
“sectorized” interventions in and around PAs. The landscape concept remains valid but not
necessarily compatible with administrative boundaries. PA management is working opera￾tionally with groupings around the parks. The project’s LTF defined a number of issues that
transcend local concern. SO7 activities will encounter its own set of concerns, implying on￾going need for rethinking geographic units.
LESSONS LEARNED
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation 49
· Leveraging the cross-cutting characteristic of E/NR management accelerates change through main￾streaming. Action plans under the Project linked environment with other sectors such as ag￾ricultural production, fisheries, forestry, health, and sanitation. When possible, future de￾velopment programming should link activities intended to increase incomes through
sustainable use of natural resources with ongoing efforts to achieve multisectoral planning.
Environment is not a “luxury” but an essential component of sustainable livelihoods. Al￾though seemingly obvious, with a shift in focus to economic returns, attention to the inte￾grated nature of environment and related institutional programming issues could become
lost. Technologies that provide quick economic returns such as an improved maize package
could provide the stimulus to include attention to soil erosion and fertility management that
enhances sustainability but whose time frame and investment returns might have otherwise
required direct subsidy.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report 1
APPENDIX 1:
DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
DOCUMENT LIST; EVALUATION TEAM
Author Date/Period Title
Ian Deshmukh 99 - 02 First to eleventh Quarterly Reports
01 Mid-Project Report
99 - 02 First to third Annual Work Plans
02 Performance Monitoring Plan (unapproved, for information, only)
Dan Taylor Feb.–Apr. 00 Queen Elizabeth Protected Area
Management Implementation. First Consultancy
Dan Taylor Oct.–Dec. 02 Queen Elizabeth Protected Area
Management Implementation. Second Consultancy
Sandra Cooper July-Aug. 00 Environmental Impact Assessment
Scoping Mission
Sandra Cooper Mar. 02 EIA Capacity-Building 2001
Sandra Cooper July 02 EIA Capacity-Building April – May 2002
Terry Bergdall Aug.-Sep. 00 ECOTRUST Board Of Trustees Planning Workshop And Follow-Up
Terry Bergdall Nov. 00 ECOTRUST Strategic Planning And Staff Orientation
Richard Lamprey June 00-July 01 Protected Area Management Planning
Andrew Roberts Sep. 00-July 01 Murchison Falls Conservation Area General Management Plan: Land￾scape Architect/Site Planning Support
Clive Lightfoot &
Simons Okalebo
Feb. 01 Report On A Learning Process For Developing Guidelines On Vision
Based Sub-County Environmental Action Planning
Robert Russell Mar.-Dec. 01 Technical Assistance, Institution Building At ECOTRUST
Isaac Kapalaga Apr. 01 Institutional Support To ECOTRUST
George Ayee July-Aug. 01 ECOTRUST: Development Of Business Plan
Darryl Kuhnle Mar.-May 01 Increasing Public Knowledge And Participation In Natural Resources
Conservation
Darryl Kuhnle Aug. 01 Public Information And Education Action Plan
Karen Menczer May 01 USAID/Uganda Integrated Strategic Plan. Environmental Threats and
Opportunities Assessment. Part 2 USAID Program Impact on Envi￾ronmental Sustainability, Tropical Forests and Biodiversity (FAA
17/118/119)
Karen Menczer May-July 01 ARD Support To Queen Elizabeth Protected Area Annual Opera￾tions Plan 2001/2
Foodnet/IITA January 02 Evaluating the Market Opportunities for Shea nut processed prod￾ucts in Uganda
John Ogwang March 02 A Monitoring And Evaluation Scheme
For Environment Action Plans: Districts Of Bushenyi, Kisoro, Rukun￾giri And Kanungu
Yakobo Moyini March 02 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Sectoral Guidelines for Wildlife Management in Uganda
C.D. Langoya March 02 Rubanga Forest, Lake Mburo National Park. Ecotourism Concept Plan
John Burton May-June 02 Land Trust Program at ECOTRUST
APPEMDIX 1
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation A-2
OTHER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
Alex Muhweezi Sep. 00 (Draft) DEAP Process Manual
02 Draft DEAPs (4 Districts)
01 Sample PEAPs and SEAPs
Bart Young Apr. 00 Uganda Wildlife Authority. General Management Plan Process Manual
(2000 version)
UWA June 02 Wildlife EIA Guidelines (final draft)
UWA Sep. 00 QE General Management Plan
UWA July 02 MF GMP
UWA July 02 Draft Lake Mburo GMP
Sandra Cooper 02 EIA Manual (final draft)
01 EIA In-service Training materials
02 PEAT Training manual and posters
CONTRACT/USAID DOCUMENTS
USAID Sep. 99 TO Statement of Work
ARD July 99 ARD proposal (which is Attachment 1 to original SoW)
USAID Mar. 02 Revised TO SoW
USAID June 97 USAID SO2 Program
USAID Aug. 97 GoU/USG SOAg
USAID June 01 New Mission Integrated Strategic Plan
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report B-1
APPENDIX 2:
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Kampala
USAID
Anne Fleuret, Acting Program Officer/Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Greg Booth, COBS Support Project CTO Environment and Natural Resources Advisor
Nightingale Natumo, SO2 and SO7
Dan Opio, Program Advisor
COBS SUPPORT PROJECT
Ian Deshmukh, ARD Chief of Party
Tom Blomley, CARE-Uganda, Conservation and Development Sector Manager
J.R. Kamugisha, CARE/Environmental Planning TA
Ms. Christina Sempebwa, Program Coordinator, ARD
Richard Lamprey, ARD UWA TA
Andrew Roberts, ARD UWA TA
Marion T Kyomuhendo, Public Information and Education TA
UWA
Dr Arthur Mugisha, Executive Director
Mr. Moses Mapesa Wafula, Deputy Director/Field Operations
Mr. Sam Mwandha, Planning and EIA Coordinator
Apophia Atukunda,DPMR
Mr. Grace Waiswa, UWA Planning Unit
Ms. Jane Bemigisha, UWAPU
NEMA
Dr. Henry Aryamanya-Mugisha, Executive Director
Dr. Emmanuel Tugume Beraho, District Support Officer
Mr. Charles Akol, Director District Support Coordinator and Public Education
Justine Ecaat, Environmental Impact Assessment Specialist
Ms. Margaret Lwanga, Gender Specialist
ECOTRUST
Dr Joy Tukahirwa, Executive Director
Robinah Takwaza, Finance and Administrative Manager
OTHER
Isaac Kapalaga, SPEED Contracts Manager
Eng. Charles Drazu, Program Coordinator, Royal Netherlands Embassy
Asimwe Martine, CARE QEPA
APPENDIX 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation B-2
Districts and Protected Areas
KISORO DISTRICT
Mr. Abdallah Kiganda, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Mr. Paul Musamali, CARE DEAP/C
Mr. William Mugisha, District Environment Officer
Mr. Zakary Bahizi, District Agricultural Officer (DAO) and Vice Chairperson, DEAP District
Task Force (DTF)
KISORO DISTRICT DEAP, PEAT, PEAP FACILITATORS
Charles Byiringiro, Assistant Agricultural Officer (AAO)
Henry Nyirimanzi, ACDO
Dr. Bernard Sibyomu, Veterinary Officer (VO)
Callisto Mpozembizi, ACDO Grade I
John Hatega, Agricultural Officer (AO)
Emmy Kalekezi, ACDO
Balthazar Bungutsiki, Agricultural Officer (AO)
Herbert Kwizera, Assistant Veterinary Officer (AVO)
Zachary Bahizi, District Production and Natural resource Management coordinator.
Kizara George, Sub-county Chief
Eva Senzira, ACDO
Joseline Bigirimana, ACDO
E. Nkuriliye, AVO
D. Nkeramugabe, Chairperson LC3
Kosaro Cyimanizanye, LC1 Chairman
Pilot Project Participants Group
KABALE DISTRICT
Dr. Brima Fatorma, Project Manager/Coordinator Africare Food Security Initiative
James Bariyanga, AFRICARE Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Charles Komachec, Roads Engineer AFRICARE Kabale
Mr. Sam Katehangwa, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Mr. James Kasimbabzi, District Production and Environment Coordinator
Ms. Charity Joy Bwiza, Program Manager, Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Con￾servation Trust
Mr. Tom Sengalama. Program Officer, Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conserva￾tion Trust (MBIFCT).
Rukingiri District
Mr. Gershom Tumushabe, Production Coordinator and Chairman DTF
Mr. Richard Muzimbwe, Ag. District Environment Officer
APPENDIX 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation B-3
Robert Ocatre, CARE DEAP/C
KANUNGU DISTRICT
Peter Mugisha, District Speaker
Dr. Tumwesigye, District Veterinary Officer
Tumwesigye Kenneth: Ass. Community development Officer
Muhonja Josephat, Ass. Fisheries Officer
Assembly, DEAP Approval
PEAT Group
BUSHENYI DISTRICT OFFICIALS
Mr. Patrick Musiime, CARE DEAP/C
Dr. Amon Rwabwiiso, Chairman DTF
Mr. William Tayebwa, District Environment Officer
Mr. Levi Etwodu, District Forestry Officer
Tibesigwa Freddie, PEAT Facilitator
Dr. Nankunda Apollo, Veterinary Officer
Kamwezi Patrick, AO
Tumuhimbise Gordon, Entomologist
Muganda Henry, AO
Rubega D.B., AO
BUSHENYI DISTRICT: KABWOHE/ITENDERO TOWN COUNCIL OFFICIALS
Rev. Ben Mugarura, Town Clerck, Kabwohe/Itendero Town Council
Mr. Enock Nsimeki, Chairman, RUASA
Byarugaba C.N. , Trainner RUASA
Kimartwa L, Trainner RUASA
Himbisa Joshua, Secretary RUASA
Mparana James, BUDIFA Chairman and Trainer
Byamugisha Eliasaph, BUDIFA Trainer
Queen Elizabeth National Park/Protected Area
Mr. Nuwe John Bosco, Chief Park Warden
Ms. Namakula Gertrude, Community Conservation Warden
Denis Katunguka, Warden, Law Enforcement
Mr. Patrick Tushabe, Warden Tourism
LAKE MBURO NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Edward Asalu, Senior Warden in charge
Mr. Christopher Musumba, Community Conservation Warden/Law Enforcement.
Mr. Genesis Okello, Ranger
APPENDIX 2
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation B-4
Warden Tourism
Moses, Ranger/Guide
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report C-1
APPENDIX 3:
PFE SCOPE OF WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK
COBS SUPPORT PROJECT – FINAL EVALUATION
Task Order No. 800 under the USAID – ARD Indefinite Quantity Contract OUT-LAG-I-800-99-00013-
00, Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry (BIOFOR).
Rationale
This Project final evaluation (PFE) of the “Conserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Development”
(COBS) Support Project is necessary for the following reasons:
a. It is the only opportunity for a comprehensive, independent and external assessment of
project achievements and impact;
b. It will provide important best practices and lessons learned that can be applied to design
and implementation of new USAID–Uganda activities under its new Integrated Strategic
Plan.
 Background
The Uganda COBS program is a collaborative effort of the United States Agency for Interna￾tional Development (USAID) and the Government of the Republic of Uganda (GoU). An inter￾government program-specific bilateral Strategic Objective Grant Agreement governs broad as￾pects of program implementation. ARD, Inc. is contracted by USAID - Uganda to assist in im￾plementation of COBS (the COBS Support Project, or ARD–COBS). ARD’s subcontractor for the
Task Order (TO) is CARE-Uganda. The TO, for the three year activity, was signed on 30 Sep￾tember, 1999. ARD and CARE have used an integrated technical implementation approach,
rather than separating activities.
The overall COBS program coincides with the USAID-Kampala Second Strategic Objective
(SO2): Critical ecosystems conserved to sustain biological diversity and to enhance benefits to society. In
addition to the USAID Mission, and ARD as an institutional contractor, many other organiza￾tions are involved in attaining SO2. Among these, as an ARD–COBS collaborator and benefici￾ary, is the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda (ECOTRUST) which manages a series
of grants, mainly to non-government organizations, carrying out activities related to SO2.
USAID’s new Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP), 2002 – 2007, became operational in late 2001. Envi￾ronment, natural resources and biodiversity are integrated into a new Strategic Objective (SO7):
Expanded sustainable economic opportunities for rural sector growth. While COBS remains under the
SO2 umbrella, USAID expects SO2 activities to lead towards achievement of SO7 as well. SO2
and relevant SO7 results are summarized in Appendix 1.
In GoU, the main ARD–COBS partners are the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), the Na￾tional Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and local government in the Districts of
Bushenyi, Kanungu, Rukungiri and Kisoro. However, the ultimate beneficiaries are expected to
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-2
be the flora, fauna and ecological processes of Uganda, and people living in and around critical
ecosystems.
Appendix 2 outlines the Statement of Work for the TO which was signed on 30 September
1999 and is expected to terminate on 30 September 2002. A significant modification to the TO
was signed in March 2002. Prior to that, the original TO SoW was formally operational. How￾ever, as early as January 2000, USAID requested a significant “re-focusing” of ARD–COBS. Sev￾eral program elements were removed or modified as summarized in Appendix 2. Substance
and progress of this refocusing are described by ARD in quarterly progress reports and summa￾rized in a Mid-Project report of July 2001. The final TO modification also incorporated a budget
cut from $7 million to $5.2 million, of which ARD was notified in October 2001.
Evaluation questions and issues
The team should assess the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of project interventions and
whether alternative approaches may have been more effective. If alternative approaches are
suggested, the team should indicate which would have been compatible with contractual con￾straints, and which would have needed different contractual parameters.
The team should:
a) focus on the most pertinent issues which evaluate contractor performance and which reveal
useful lessons learnt of value to future programming;
b) identify those outputs/results/impacts which are clearly attributable to contractor activities;
c) identify, with reasons, significant activities (if any) which the contractor was unable to un￾dertake or complete.
USAID’s guidelines for evaluations (ADS 203) emphasizes that a small number of key questions
or specific issues are addressed using empirical evidence. It is the contractor’s responsibility to
provide a descriptive project Final Report. The evaluation team report should, therefore, focus
on the following four questions. The accompanying narratives are indicative of broad issues
and activities which should be evaluated. The PFE should evaluate additional issues as the arise
which are relevant to answering the four primary questions.
What did the COBS Support Project achieve?
Appendices 1 and 2 outline expected results at the Mission level, and Results and outputs at the
project level, respectively. The PFE will:
ß Estimate project achievements quantitatively and qualitatively against these expectations.
ß Assess the extent to which project implementation actions are evident on the ground as a
result of direct project activities, direct beneficiary, or other partner actions.
ß Assess the extent to which biodiversity, environment and natural resource and human de￾velopment conditions are improved/likely to be improved by project activities.
UWA and local governments received substantial technical, capacity-building and financial as￾sistance. NEMA has received indirect support in relationship to its mandate for oversight of
DEAPs and in EIA capacity-building. ECOTRUST has received substantial technical assistance
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-3
in accomplishing its transition from USAID’s SO2 Grant Management Unit. The USAID Mission
has also requested and received technical assistance under Results Module 5 (RM4 after the TO
modification – see Appendix 2). The PFE will assess to what extent these organizations are satis￾fied with the support received.
What did the COBS Support Project fail to achieve?
The PFE will identify which results and outputs will not, or are unlikely to, be achieved, and
analyze constraints and probable causes. The team will indicate which of these causes and con￾straints were beyond control of the contractor, or where a different approach (within project re￾sources) may have been more effective.
What is the impact and sustainability of COBS Support Project achievements?
ARD–COBS has invested in developing certain environment/natural resources planning and
plan-implementation mechanisms in UWA and, in collaboration with NEMA, local govern￾ment. The PFE will assess whether human and financial resources to continue this planning
and plan implementation are available and likely to be mobilized.
The project has built capacity in UWA for protected areas planning and plan implementa￾tion. Local government has similarly received support in action planning, environmental main￾streaming, environmental awareness and EIA. The PFE will assess effectiveness of the ap￾proaches used to capacity-building and whether beneficiaries are using the skills and
knowledge they have gained.
What are the key lessons learned that USAID can build on?
USAID’s new ISP integrates environment and economic growth programs in SO7. At least one
proposed activity is expected to focus in western Uganda in areas which overlap with where
many ARD–COBS activities are focused. The PFE will assess what can be learned from the ARD–
COBS approach and activities which is applicable to SO7 and broader USAID programming.
Methods
1. Review relevant project documentation including progress reports, annual work plans, TO
SOWs (including the ARD proposal), and consultant reports, and any additional documen￾tation made available by ARD, USAID and other partners.
2. Consult with USAID Mission staff to gather relevant views and information on the major
evaluation questions.
3. Consult with the ARD and CARE implementation team to gather relevant views and infor￾mation on the major evaluation questions.
4. Consult with the major Ugandan project beneficiaries to gather relevant views and informa￾tion on the major evaluation questions. Primary contacts in this respect are UWA (head￾quarters and field), NEMA, District local government (from Parish to District level) and
ECOTRUST. However, the team should endeavor to contact “secondary partners” such as
NGOs and other relevant projects, who may not be direct beneficiaries, but who have inter￾sected with ARD–COBS.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-4
5. Make at least one field visit to assess project activities in UWA Protected Areas and local
governments in southwestern Uganda.
6. As time allows, attend any significant project implementation events/activities that occur
during the evaluation. During such events (if any) the team should take the opportunity to
consult project partners on evaluation questions and issues.
Deliverables
1. In consultation with USAID and ARD, provide a schedule and work plan for the evaluation
within three days of the team assembling in Kampala. The work plan will identify joint and
individual tasks for the team members and methods to be used to gather information. This
work plan must be agreed with USAID before proceeding further.
2. A first draft final report, with major findings and conclusions presented orally and in writ￾ing to USAID and ARD–COBS at least four days prior to departure of the evaluation team
leader.
3. A complete draft final report to an agreed format, incorporating feedback from major
stakeholders prior to departure of the evaluation team leader, submitted simultaneously to
USAID and ARD. The final report should be concise and focused, bearing in mind guidance
in Section 3 above.
4. A final report, incorporating any changes in response to written comments from USAID and
ARD, submitted by the PFE team leader within one week of receiving such comments.
Personnel, timing and level of effort
The PFE will be conducted by a three person team, comprising a Team Leader and two Team
Members. The Team Leader will have experience in USAID results-based programming, per￾formance M&Es. The team as a whole will have technical expertise in the following areas:
ß Biodiversity conservation;
ß Protected areas planning and management;
ß Environmental and natural resources planning and management;
ß Environmental Impact Assessment;
ß Decentralized governance;
ß Institutional development and capacity-building;
ß Participatory planning;
ß Knowledge of Uganda’s environment and natural resources institutional and policy framework.
The evaluation is scheduled for approximately four weeks during the period 20 July -31 August
2002. Level of effort for the Team Leader is 26 working days (inclusive of international travel),
and 20 days for each Team Member.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-5
Roles, responsibilities and administration
Although contracted by ARD under the COBS Support Project TO, USAID–Uganda has pri￾mary oversight responsibility of the evaluation team and process. The Uganda Mission will
designate the relevant officials to provide technical oversight, guidance and to define reporting
requirements. The USAID Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) will provide day-to-day technical
oversight of the PFE team in consultation with the ARD–COBS Chief of Party.
The Evaluation Team Leader is responsible for team coordination and performance, and for
ensuring timeliness and quality of deliverables.
ARD will provide contractual oversight and support for international and local travel and
logistics.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-6
APPENDIX 1
USAID RESULTS FRAMEWORK
ARD as an institutional contractor contributes to USAID’s overall environmental program ar￾ticulated under the Uganda Mission’s Strategic Objective 2 (SO2): Critical ecosystems conserved to
sustain biological diversity and to enhance benefits to society. Under ARD’s Statement of Work, the
contractor contributes to three primary “Intermediate Results” (IRs), each with several second
level IRs, as follows.
IR 2.1 Critical ecosystems managed to ensure biological integrity.
IR 2.1.1 Protected areas management plans implemented.
IR 2.1.2 Community-level resource use agreements implemented.
IR 2.1.3 Ecologically sound private sector investments undertaken.
IR 2.2 Pressure on critical ecosystems reduced.
IR 2.2.1 Increased dependence on sustainable resource use systems.
IR 2.2.2 Population pressure on environment mitigated.
IR 2.3 Supportive framework for conservation and sustainable development maintained.
IR 2.3.1 NEAP [National Environment Action Plan] objectives strategically important for
conservation of critical ecosystems implemented.
IR 2.3.2 Knowledge base improved to better guide natural resources management policy
decisions.
IR 2.3.3 Role of civil society in natural resources management policy formulation in￾creased.
IR 2.3.4 Sectoral laws enacted in consultation with lead agencies.
IR 2.3.5 Political leadership mobilized in support of environmental management.
IR 2.3.2-5.1 Public awareness in support of conservation and sustainable development
increased.
At the level of USAID’s country program each IR has a series of indicators measuring success
towards achieving SO2. It is important to note that other projects and organizations are in￾volved in implementing the COBS/SO2 program, and they contribute to achievement of the IRs,
in addition to ARD–COBS.
During 2001 USAID Uganda developed a new Integrated Strategic Plan. New environment
and natural resources activities fall under Strategic Objective 7 (SO7): Expanded sustainable eco-
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-7
nomic opportunities for rural sector growth. Although ARD–COBS remains under the SO2 um￾brella, the project addresses several SO7 IRs, most notably:
IR 7.2.1 Improved utilization of selected critical landscapes.
IR 7.2.3 Increased provision of private and public sector support services.
IR 7.3.1 Increased capacity of local producer and community-based organizations to
manage and market productive assets.
IR 7.4.3 Effective advocacy for environmental and natural resource policies.
APPENDIX 2 COBS Support Project
Summary of Statements of Work
These summaries are provided to the PFE Team as initial background to the main activities of
the COBS Support Project and the Evaluation SoW. The full SoWs (including ARD’s original
proposal, which serves as Attachment 1 to the original SoW) will be provided to the team for
review and analysis.
The original SoW with its attachment was technically operational from September 1999 to
March 2002. However, the Mission requested a “refocusing” exercise in January 2000 which
eliminated several activities (including Results Module 3). A revised SoW (Modification No 2)
reflecting the refocusing was drafted in April 2000, and additional changes were incorporated in
December 2001 leading to a signed Modification No 2. in March 2002. The original ceiling price
of approximately $7 million reduced to approximately $5.2 million in Modification No. 2.
Note that:
a) Because of elimination of original Results Module 3, the numbering of equivalent RMs
changes in Modification No. 2.
b) In Modification No. 2, ARD’s original proposal no longer serves as an attachment to the SoW.
c) Modification 1 to the TO in 2001 was provision of incremental funding, only.
A. Summary of Results Expected: Original Task Order for Core Program Support to USAID–
Uganda So2
Results Module No. 1: “Rationalizing Management of Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Areas.”
Module Goal Statement
Increase UWA’s long-term planning and management capabilities through assistance to de￾velop and implement GMPs for selected protected areas.
Results to be Achieved
The following key results/targets are illustrative and intended to guide approaches and activi￾ties under this module. The contractor’s proposal dated 19 July 99 is included as Attachment 1
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-8
to this SOW and contains the results/targets and proposed approach that the Contractor shall be
held accountable for.
1. UWA Planning Unit develops GMPs for two Priority Protected Areas.
2. Number of UWA Protected Areas with current GMPs increased from 8 (1998) to 15
(2001).
3. Percentage of UWA Protected Areas with capacity to develop annual operations plans
increased to 100%.
4. Increased number of examples where planning used by UWA Board of Trustees, head￾quarters, and field management to inform protected areas management decisions.
Results Module No. 2: “Environmental Planning and Management in Biodiverse Land￾scapes/Districts.”
Module Goal Statement
Increase capacity of selected Districts to develop and implement District Environment Action
Plans as an integral part of District-level development planning and implementation.
Expected Results
The following key results/targets are illustrative and intended to guide approaches and activi￾ties under this module. The Contractor’s proposal dated 19 July 99 is included as Attachment 1
to this SOW and the Contractor shall be held accountable for the results/targets contained
therein.
1. DEAPs developed in 5 Districts.
2. Number of Districts where development activities are guided by environmentally sound
DEAPs/DDPs increased from 2 (1998) to 10 (2001). [Note: the intent of this result/target
is that local development occurs with full consideration of the effects of the environ￾ment. As such, the contractor should define how it will determine whether or not Dis￾trict development activities are being appropriately guided by DEAPs/DDPs].
Results Module No. 3: “Institutional Support and Capacity-Building for Enhanced Cross￾Sectoral Environmental Management and Biodiversity Conservation: Environmental Liaison
Units.”
Module Goal Statement
Improve ELU capacity to ensure that lead agency-level policies, planning and activities are in
accordance and compliance with the NEAP and environmental legislation.
Result to be Achieved
The following key results/targets are illustrative and intended to guide approaches and activi￾ties under this module. The Contractor’s proposal dated 19 July 99 is included as attachment 1
and therein are the results/targets for which the Contractor will be held accountable for under
this SOW.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-9
1. Number of effective ELUs increased from 0 (1998) to 14 (2001) [Note: “Effective” should
be defined by the contractor in terms of factors such as: staffing; training; equipment;
and degrees of the ELU agency/ministry’s compliance with environmental policy and
legislation].
2. Increased number of examples where environmental concerns integrated into sectoral
policies, planning and activity implementation in accordance with environmental legis￾lation.
Results Module No. 4: “Capacity Building for Environmental Review and Assessment.”
Module Goal Statement
Increase institutional capacity and collaboration for all aspects of environmental assessment,
review and monitoring.
Results to be Achieved
The following key results/targets are illustrative and intended to guide approaches and activi￾ties under this module. The Contractor’s proposal dated 19 July 99 is attachment 1 to this SOW
and contains the results/targets and proposed approach that the Contractor shall be held ac￾countable for during performance of this SOW.
1. Increased consideration of environmental issues in development process through use of
environmental assessment by NEMA and other lead agencies (Annual increase in number
of quality EIAs inform the development process). [Note: the intent of this result/target is
that environmental review and assessment increasingly informs sectoral and local devel￾opment. A “quality” EIA is compliant with NEMA’s approved EIA guidelines and stan￾dards and any appropriate sectoral guidelines. An EIA informs the development process if
it is approved and utilized by the relevant development authority].
2. Thirty DEOs able to conduct environmental screening; determine the need for EIA; en￾sure compliance with EIA guidelines and regulations; and ensure compliance with miti￾gation measures.
3. Fourteen ELUs able to conduct environmental screening; determine the need for EIA;
ensure compliance with EIA guidelines and regulations; and ensure compliance with
mitigation measures.
4. Environmental guidelines developed, approved and implemented for 7 key sectors.
Results Module 5: “Special Biodiversity Support Activities.”
Module Goal Statement
Provide technical and program support to activities that support results defined under the
SO2 Program (and not otherwise provided for as part of other results modules or SO2 Pro￾gram activities).
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-10
Results to be Achieved
Given the flexibility inherent in this module, no results are provided. Actual results to be
achieved will be targeted as SO2/COBS Program needs are identified.
Results Module 6: “COBS Program Management and Coordination
Module Goal Statement
Ensure that the overall SO2 Program remains “on-track” towards desired results by support￾ing the overall effort of the SO2 Teams in addressing the Strategic Objective, through pro￾viding support to the design, implementation, coordination, and monitoring of all SO2 Pro￾gram activities and results.
Results to be Achieved
The following key results/targets are illustrative and intended to guide approaches and activi￾ties under this module. The Contractor’s proposal dated 19 July 99 is Attachment 1 to this SOW
and contained therein are the results/targets and proposed approach for which the Contractor
will be held accountable for during performance of this SOW.
1. Detailed plan, first-year work plan and performance monitoring plan for overall Core
Program Support Activity prepared and submitted to USAID for approval within 60
days of Task Order award.
2. Commodities and logistical support provided in support of Contractor-managed activities.
3. Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for S02/COBS Program guides results-based man￾agement of SO2 Program.
4. SO2/COBS Program remains on tack in achieving results as specified in PMP.
B. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND OUTPUTS EXPECTED: MODIFICATION 2 OF THE
TASK ORDER FOR CORE PROGRAM SUPPORT TO USAID–UGANDA SO2
Results Module 1: Management of Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Areas
Module Goal Statement.
Increase UWA’s long-term planning and management capabilities through assistance to de￾velop and implement GMPs for selected protected areas.
Results to be achieved. ARD will achieve results under two broad headings as follows: 1) Man￾agement Planning, and 2) Management Plan Implementation.
Results
1. UWA Planning Unit develops GMPs for four priority Protected Areas – Murchison Falls
NP, Bugungu and Karuma WRs and Lake Mburo NP.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-11
2. A procedure for annual operations planning (AOP) is developed, tested and utilized to
guide management decisions and allocations of resources in PAs with and without
GMPs.
Outputs
ß Wildlife sectoral guidelines for EIA
ß Revised PA management planning process and manual actively applied by UWA
ß A cadre of UWA planning staff capable of defining, leading and managing the PA Man￾agement Plan process
ß Revised PA management planning process and format manual, including standardized
costing procedures and design standards actively applied by UWA.
ß Annual Operation Plan formats to guide the allocation, monitoring and reporting of re￾sources used in managing select PAs
ß Implementation of selected aspects of the Queen Elizabeth GMP in the area of visitor services.
Results Module 2: Environmental Planning and Management in Biodiverse Landscapes/Districts
Module Goal Statement.
Increase capacity of local District councils and rural communities to develop and implement Environ￾mental Action Plans to conserve and protect natural resources as an integral part of District-level devel￾opment.
Results to be achieved.
ARD will achieve results under three broad headings as follows: 1) Review and Streamlining of
the DEAP Process, 2) Preparation of DEAPs, and 3) Implementation of EAPs in Critical Ecosys￾tems. In particular, this Task Order notes the following key results/targets as desired outcomes.
Results
1. DEAPs developed in four (4) Districts.
2. EAP implementation active in at least four (4) Districts, with activities of at least 10
SEAPs under implementation.
3. System in place and capacity built in local government for M&E of DEAP implementation.
4. Public Information and Education (PIE) campaign in Environment and Natural Re￾source Management (ENRM). This will promote conservation and sustainable utilization
of Uganda’s diverse natural endowments to stem their rapid deterioration evident
throughout the country. Initial targeting, design and dissemination of awareness materi￾als will be focused in the DEAP Districts with links to the relevant ENRM campaigns of
appropriate government and private sector trade organizations that depend upon and
promote improved environmental management (for example, UWA, Wetlands Program,
Forestry Authority, Fisheries Department, NEMA, Uganda Fish Processors and Export￾ers Ass’n, Ass’n of Uganda Tour Operators). The strategy will provide a long-term
sustainability plan for the PIE activity.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-12
5. An inter-District (“landscape”) grouping is established of local government officials and
partners representing the four COBS Support target Districts, which exchanges experi￾ence and information, and acts as an advocacy group in environment and natural re￾sources issues in southwest Uganda.
Outputs
ß Revised DEAP process manual that includes relevant local council (e.g., Subcounty) ac￾tion planning guidelines.
ß PEAPs, SEAPs and DEAPs produced and submitted for approval in all target Districts.
ß Linkages established and local capacity built to enable local authorities responsible for
EAP implementation to connect with potential sources of support such as “internally”
generated revenue (local taxes), PMA non-sectoral conditional grants and other do￾nor/NGO development funds.
ß A series of lessons-learned documents and capacity building sessions developed and
delivered in collaboration with the USAID-funded EPED project that explain and extend
the participatory EAP process including the demonstration of results.
ß A pilot process for developing and enforcing agreements for the management of natural
resources held under control of local authorities.
Results Module 3: Capacity-Building and Institutional Support: Environmental Assessment and
Environmental Review
Module Goal Statement:
The intent of this Results Module is to ensure that environmental review and assessment are
mainstreamed in sectoral and local development. Two goals are specific to this Results Module:
1. Increased institutional capacity of selected Districts to incorporate environmental assessment, re￾view and monitoring in development plans, policies and actions.
2. Increased capacity and effectiveness of EA/EIA training and education delivery mechanisms in
support of EA and its incorporation into District and national management agendas.
Results to be achieved:
ARD will achieve results under three broad headings as follows: 1) Formal EA/EIA Training
Program, 2) Environmental Management Public Awareness, and 3) Other EA/EIA Support Ac￾tivities. In particular, this Task Order notes the following key results/targets as desired out￾comes.
Results
1. Increased use of environmental review and assessment in the local development proc￾ess.
2. An increase in the number of EIAs that are compliant with NEMA’s approved national
EIA guidelines and any appropriate sectoral guidelines.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-13
3. At least 80 Local Government officials and officers (a combination of representatives
from District Executive Committees; Production & Environment Secretaries; District
technical officers representing such fields as environment, agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
planners, water, sanitation and engineering; and extension advisors, and local repre￾sentatives of UWA, local NGOs and other appropriate private sector organizations) with
the capacity to evaluate development activities for their environmental soundness and
for their compliance with the NES. This requires a working knowledge of the NES and
with EIA guidelines and regulations. Further, these officials must be able to conduct en￾vironmental screening, evaluate proposed developments for their environmental im￾pacts and judge the effectiveness proposed mitigation measures.
4. Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines developed and approved for implemen￾tation in the wildlife sector. This will include the management of wildlife inside and out￾side the UWA estate and UWA’s management activities within its Protected Area estate.
Outputs
ß In-service EIA training program for local government officials using a comprehensive
case study approach to provide an understanding of national environmental regulations
and standards, environmental impacts, monitoring and mitigation and their application
to local rural development The training will transfer sufficient EIA skills and knowledge
to enable trainees to monitor the conduct of EIAs and to review the Environmental Im￾pact Statements (EIS).
ß A training of training program whereby a basic understanding of basic environmental
processes that sustain rural economies and the importance of environmental manage￾ment are transmitted to ordinary rural producers and community members.
ß An environmental manual for public sector officers that will serve as a ready EIA reference.
ß A framework for testing and certifying private sector EIA practitioners established and
approved by NEMA.
Results Module 4: Special Biodiversity Support Activities
Module Goal Statement:
Provide technical and program support to activities that support results defined under the SO2
Program (and not otherwise provided for as part of other results modules or SO2 Program ac￾tivities).
Results to be achieved:
Given the flexibility inherent in this module, no results are provided. Actual results to be
achieved will be targeted as SO2/COBS Program needs are identified.
APPENDIX 3
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation C-14
Module No. 5: Activity Coordination and Administration
This is not a Results Module in the sense of 1-4 above. Rather, it addresses project management func￾tions. ARD’s Project Management Unit (PMU) will administer the project and provide technical input
to deliver the results desired under this modified Task Order.
COBS Project Final Evaluation Report D-1
APPENDIX 4:
WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE
CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (COBS):
FINAL EVALUATION WORKPLAN
August 2, 2002
ARD Final Evaluation Team
Dr. Frederick Sowers, Team Leader
Frank Muhereza
Monica Kapiriri
APPENDIX 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation D-2
I. Evaluation Approach and Methodology
The Uganda COBS program is a collaborative effort of the Government of the Republic of
Uganda and the United States Agency for International Development. Implementation of the
program is spearheaded through a technical support contract to ARD Inc who in turn has sub￾contracted with CARE-Uganda to assist in implementation especially of field-based activity.
ARD and CARE have unified their efforts which are directed from a central Program Manage￾ment Unit (PMU). Although the project-funded Evaluation Team will work closely with the
PMU to coordinate and facilitate its activities, the evaluation represents a comprehensive, inde￾pendent external assessment of the project achievements.
The primary client for the evaluation is USAID/Kampala. Because the COBS project per se is
moving toward close-out, the evaluation will pay particular attention to documenting best
practices and lessons learned and interpreting these with respect to the recently completed
USAID Strategic Plan, 2002-2007. During the implementation of COBS, USAID’s strategic focus
has shifted from institutional capacity development toward a more private sector growth and
poverty alleviation strategy. COBS was implemented under the previous strategic plan and was
the primary mechanism to achieve SO2, Critical ecosystems conserved to sustain biodiversity and to
enhance benefits to society. Many of the prior SO2 results have been subsumed under the current
strategic plan’s SO7, Expanded sustainable economic opportunities for rural sector growth.
The Evaluation Approach follows current USAID guidance in the sense that the team views
evaluation as a collaborative activity that is intended to enhance the effectiveness of program
implementation by responding to specific management needs, which in this case are centered
on extracting guidance in elaborating and implementing activities under the new strategy’s
SO7. COBS has been a comprehensive institutional support project and has addressed capacity
issues particularly for improved planning in a number of mostly-government organizations. It
has done so, in many cases, using partnerships and other indirect means. Given the limited time
and personnel of the evaluation, the team’s approach is to use an iterative methodology to re￾fine data collection increasingly around a subset of questions and issues that seem most perti￾nent to the management needs of the primary client. The evaluation, therefore, will 1) document
achievements and shortcomings against expectations as reflected in contracts, work plans and
other programmatic documents; 2) examine evidence of impact and sustainability primarily to
the degree that they create an enabling institutional environment for biodiversity conservation;
and 3) to frame lessons learned from the ongoing COBS support in terms of the strategic refo￾cusing under the new SO7 which shifts focus to economic growth but still includes environ￾ment.
The team will use a range of methods to collect the necessary information to accomplish the
evaluation purposes. The work commences with a review of key documents to identify issues
and carry out team assignments. The evaluation will use program documents to determine a
APPENDIX 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation D-3
format for presentation of results; this will follow the core “results modules” (RMs) that have
guided implementation and reporting. The first week will be spent reviewing these documents,
arranging initial interviews with the key COBS staff and partners and with USAID. During this
time an evaluation schedule and field visit itinerary are being prepared and provisional tasking
for data collection and reporting will be undertaken.
The team will develop a field interview guide for information gathering at various levels. The
methodology will follow a framework developed by the Institute for Cultural Affairs know as
ORID. ORID (Objective, Reflective, Interpretive, and Decisional) is used to guide and focus
conversations and understanding and will help individual consultants to harmonize data col￾lection scope and methods whether using key informant, group interviews, direct observation
and other information gathering techniques. The team does not anticipate using any formal
survey or quantitative analysis techniques, but will rely on using multiple case studies and data
triangulation to assure the accuracy and completeness of findings and analysis. Office inter￾views, field visits, ‘outsider’ perspectives, direct observation and secondary source material will
all contribute to an increasingly complete composite for each of the key areas of project activity
and thus of assessment. As the period of data collection comes to a close, the team will use a
structured consensus building retreat to assure a single evaluation perspective, to identify in￾formation gaps, and to clarify areas of ambiguity.
The team will report its conclusions and recommendations/lessons learned with reference to the
specific findings and analysis that led to them. Detailed recommendations for specific program
modules This will enable the users of the evaluation results to better follow the evaluation ra￾tionale and make use of the overall work. As the work progresses, the team will engage in for￾mal and informal information sharing to better incorporate perspectives of the program’s mul￾tiple stakeholders.
II. Evaluation Schedule
Overall Evaluation Schedule
July 30 – August 3 Team Planning Meeting
Introductory interviews with key institutions
Document review and preparation of Evaluation Work plan
Preparation of Field visit
August 4 – 11 Field visit to Southwestern Uganda (see detailed schedule)
August 12 – 17Follow-up interviews with implementation partners
Refinement of writing assignments/drafting of findings
Internal team consensus building retreat
APPENDIX 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation D-4
August 19 – 24Preparation of initial draft report
Preparation and presentation of findings
Refinement of draft report based on written and oral feedback
Presentation of draft report
August 25 – Sept 7 Completion of Final Evaluation document
ARD–COBS FINAL EVALUATION TRAVEL SCHEDULE
Day/Date Accommodation Activities/Meetings
Sunday 4 August
Travel to Kisoro
Tourist Hotel · Review Field Interview Guidelines
Monday 5th
Kisoro District
Tourist Hotel · Wetland pilot (farmers & extension staff – latter coor￾dinating pilots & were EAP facilitators)
· CAO & DTF
· LC2 & LC3 EAP facilitators & participants
· PEAT trainers and participants
· ECOTRUST DEAP project
Tuesday 6th Park House Hotel
(Ishaka)
Morning – to Kabale
· Africare, DTC/DTF, Bwindi Trust (max 3h) –team
splits
Lunch: Kabale (Anne Fleuret?)
Afternoon – to Ishaka
Wednesday 7th
Bushenyi District
Mweya Lodge · Similar to Kisoro; may want to include Kichwamba
and QEPA CC project en route to Mweya.
· To QEPA may meet staff in evening.
Thursday 8th
QEPA
Park House Hotel
(Ishaka)
QEPA
· GMP, AOP, Visitor center
CPW Bosco (was @ Lake Mburo); LE warden Dennis was
there for GMP – others tbd.
· To Ishaka
Friday 9th
Rukungiri/
Kanungu
Stay in Rukungiri or
Mbarara, depending
on time
Morning (early) to Rukungiri; team splits:
· In Rukungiri meet LCV and CAO (needs 1 DTF mem￾ber to work with team + selected activities as in
Kisoro. Need additional vehicle
· Savanna Hotel (Kanungu District). DEAP approval
meeting
· To Rukungiri or Mbarara.
Saturday 10th
Lake Mburo
Lake Mburo – tents
or bandas. [If full re￾turn to Mbarara]
Lake Mburo NP; GMP. AOP; n.b. Warden in Charge was
involved with Murchison GMP. Community User Agree￾ment
Sunday 11th
Return to KLA.
Morning in LMNP if needed
APPENDIX 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation D-5
III. Reporting
As noted in the timetable, the evaluation team will report results first through an initial oral pres￾entation, timed to approximately correspond with compilation of an initial draft document. The
team would expect feedback both from the oral presentation and from an initial reading of the
progress draft. Based on this feedback a final draft will be presented upon the team leader’s de￾parture. Any additional response to the draft evaluation will be incorporated into the final version
of the report, which will be prepared, printed and presented to USAID by the contractor.
DRAFT REPORT OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS
Title Page
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Introduction - FS
Evaluation Findings
Module 1. Biodiversity Conservation - FS
Problem statement
Findings and Analysis
Conclusion
Recommendations
Module 2. Environmental Planning and Management - FM
Problem statement
Findings and Analysis
Conclusion
Recommendations
Module 3.Capacity-building and institutional support - MK
APPENDIX 4
COBS Support Project Final Evaluation D-6
Problem statement
Findings and Analysis
Conclusion
Recommendations
Module 4-5. Special support, coordination, and administration - TEAM
Problem statement
Findings and Analysis
Conclusion
Recommendations
Impact and Sustainability -TEAM
Lessons Learned - TEAM
References
Appendices