Sample completed ESNs
PROJECT TITLE: POOLED FUND FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
TO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Section A - Basic Information
Project Title: Pooled Fund for Humanitarian Assistance
to Democratic Republic of Congo
Project Cost: £30,000,000
Duration: 12 months
Country: DRC
Department: DFID DRC
Lead Project/Project Officer: Yoland Bewick
Officer responsible for environmental screening:
Cate Turton
Brief description of intervention:
The DRC 2006 Action Plan aims to provide a framework
for humanitarian and stabilisation activities in the DRC. Under
the Action Plan 3 lines of action are envisaged: (a) saving lives;
(b) building a protective environment; (c) promoting stability.
It encompasses proposals from UN agencies and government. Around
330 projects have been accepted (60%) from NGOs with a total funding
requirement of $681 million.
The Action Plan is based on a multisectoral needs
assessment covering education, food security and nutrition, health,
landmine action, protection, refugees and reintegration, shelter
and non food items, water and sanitation, and coordination. Each
sector or cluster will be led by a UN agency,
A pooled fund has been established to take forward
the first two lines of the Action Plan. The aim of the fund is
to enhance UN capacity to respond to humanitarian crises through
the provision of a flexible resource managed under the coordination
of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator. The Fund will be used to respond
to priority needs identified by the Coordinator within the action
plan.
Section B - Assessment
Environmental issues:
The environmental impact of our contribution to the
pooled fund depends on the issues identified in the action plan,
the nature of the priority projects identified by the Humanitarian
Coordinator and the capacity of implementing agencies to adopt
best practice in terms of managing and mitigating environmental
impacts.
Environmental risks and impacts of the action plan
will be most significantly associated with water and sanitation,
infrastructure rehabilitation and food security projects. These
comprise a significant proportion of the Action Plan.
DFID environmental screening would normally take
place on a project by project basis. In moving to an action plan/pooled
fund approach, we are 'delegating' responsibility for environmental
screening to UN OCHA - as the coordinators of the Action Plan.
We therefore need to ensure that the systems and procedures in
place for the development, implementation and monitoring of projects
within the action plan sufficiently encompass environmental issues.
It is not clear whether sufficient attention has
been paid to environmental issues in the:
a. Planning and development of projects: A number
of cross cutting issues (such as gender, HIV AIDS) were considered
in the preparation of the Action Plan but environmental issues
were not explicitly considered
b. Implementation of projects: It is not clear
whether OCHA considered the capacity of agencies to mainstream
environmental best practice in their activities. Attention to
managing relevant environment issues can be highly variable within
agencies even where a strong policy statement exists.
c. Monitoring systems: monitoring mechanisms
will be based around cluster working groups with an emphasis on
standardising procedures - it will be important to incorporate
environmental issues into these procedures.
Next steps:
1. DRC Environmental Adviser and programme officer
to meet UN OCHA and discuss whether environmental issues are sufficiently
incorporated into project planning, implementation and monitoring.
2. Depending on the outcome of these discussions,
we may consider engaging consultancy support to:
Review the environmental issues associated
with the principal humanitarian intervention areas in the 2006
Action Plan. Emphasis will be given to the 'priority humanitarian
projects' as identified by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator.
Review environmental policy and practice of
principal implementing agencies. A synopsis would be prepared
for each agency, including corporate policy, environmental issues
associated with field of expertise, the technical capacity of
the agency to implement best practice and M&E arrangements.
Work with UN OCHA to ensure that Action Plan
procedures for 2007 (i.e. the call for projects, project application
guidance and M&E systems) includes reference to environmental
integration; and that there is relevant environment expertise
available to those in charge of appraising suitability of projects
and monitoring them.
Any other comments:
A similar approach to environmental screening is
being taken forward in Sudan and Ethiopia, where DFID is also
contributing to a common fund and action plan. The Environment
Adviser will follow up with CHASE on how lessons emerging across
these 3 programmes can be taken forward and contribute to DFID's
corporate priority of strengthening the UN humanitarian system.
Section C - Sign off
Environment adviser: Cate Turton Date : 05/03/06
Lead project officer: Yoland Bewick Date: 06/03/06
PROJECT TITLE: TANZANIA POVERTY REDUCTION BUDGET
SUPPORT (PRBS) 2006/09
FLAG I
Section A - Basic Information
Project Title: Tanzania Poverty Reduction Budget
Support (PRBS) 2006/09
Project Cost: £310 million 2006/09
Duration: 2006/09: thereafter rolling
three year programme
Country: Tanzania
Department: DFID Tanzania
Lead Project/Project Officer: Ian Shapiro
Officer responsible for environmental screening:
David Howlett
Brief description of intervention:
Financial contribution to the Government of Tanzania
in support of the National Growth and Poverty Reduction Plan (NSGRP),
or in Kiswahili the MKUKUTA .
Section B - Assessment
Environmental issues:
The National Environmental Policy of 1997 outlines
six key environmental concerns for Tanzania: land degradation,
deforestation, environmental pollution, loss of wildlife habitat
and biodiversity, deterioration of aquatic ecosystems, and lack
of accessible good quality water. The poor in Tanzania are heavily
dependent on the environment both for income generation and consumption.
The primary issues thus relate to Tanzania's high dependence on
its renewable natural resources, the close linkages between poverty
and environment. Key poverty and environment links in Tanzania
include:
Livelihoods - Majority of people (rural & urban)
depend upon environment and natural resources for their livelihoods.
Economic growth - Main economic sectors, agriculture,
tourism and mining, depend upon environment and natural resources
(ENR). In 2000 ENR, including tourism and mining, contributed
~66% to the economy.
Vulnerability - Poor are most at risk from environmental
related disasters: floods, drought; pollution; and, land degradation.
Health - People's health is dependent upon a good
and clean environment: safe water; sanitation; solid waste management;
water borne diseases; and indoor air pollution is a factor in
child < 5 yr mortality.
Water - Essential for domestic use, agriculture,
energy and environmental services.
Energy - Essential for growth - main source is wood
and charcoal but present management is leading to deforestation.
Hydro power provides significant proportion of electricity needs
but is dependent upon management of catchments to maintain supplies.
Governance - Access and control over ENR resources
impacts on peoples' livelihoods
Conflict - Abundance and scarcity of natural resources
as triggers/fuels for conflict e.g. gold - commercial mines and
artisanal mines; land/water - agriculturalists vs pastoralists.
Tanzania Government and the environment
The Government stated aim (National Environmental
Policy of 1997) is to ensure environmental sustainability, security
and equitable use of resources for sustaining the livelihoods
of the present and future generations; raising public awareness
and understanding of links between environment and development;
promoting individual and community participation in environmental
action; promoting international cooperation on the environment
agenda; and, expanding Tanzania's participation and contribution
to relevant environmental bilateral, regional and global organisations
and programs, including implementation of treaties. Over the last
3 years the Government has delivered a number of key environmental
actions to achieve this aim, these are summarised below together
with remaining challenges.
Environmental Management Act
In December 2002, the Cabinet approved an Institutional
and Legal Framework for Environmental Management Program (ILFEMP),
which led to the passing of the Environmental Management Act (No
20 of 2004). This act provides the legal basis for environmental
protection, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA), cross-sectoral coordination on environment,
and integration of environment management into local government
planning processes. The Division of Environment in the Vice President's
Office (VPO) and the National Environmental Management Council
(NEMC) remain the lead agencies for implementing the EA efforts,
while sector ministries and local government have specific responsibilities
on environmental management.
Environment Working Group
The Government established an Environmental Working
Group (EWG) in 2004 as a forum for discussion on environmental
policy and the interface with civil society, academia, development
partners and Government Ministries. The development partners are
presently represented on the EWG by technical staff from UNDP,
DANIDA, EC and the World Bank. This forum is convened by the Government
monthly.
MKUKUTA and environment
The MKUKUTA highlights the important role of natural
resources and environment to combat poverty. Environment and natural
resources management have been mainstreamed in the document, with
strong emphasis on the role of natural resources for income generation,
reducing vulnerability of the poor to environmental risks, the
importance of good governance, and the need to emphasize local
involvement and participation. An underlying principle of the
MKUKUTA is on sustainability and there are environmental targets
under all three clusters ; 14% of the targets directly or indirectly
relate to environment and natural resources management. There
are further environmental interventions under other targets. This
is a significant improvement on the first PRS.
Budget and Monitoring
Environment has also been addressed in the Public
Expenditure Review (PER) and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework
(MTEF). Initial poverty-environment indicators have been included
in the poverty monitoring system and a major study has recently
been completed which will lead to the strengthening of environment
indicators in the Poverty Monitoring System (PMS). These indicators
will be used to monitor progress towards the millennium development
targets, including those under MDG 7 on environmental sustainability.
Growth and the environment
An environment study on growth was undertaken as
part of the development of the Country Economic Memorandum (CEM)
between the Government and the World Bank. The final CEM includes
a section on the contribution of environment and natural resources
to growth and the need for their sustainable management. A report
on economic instruments was commissioned by Government, and is
being used to develop economic instruments as part of the implementation
of EMA.
Environmental governance
The Government has highlighted environmental governance
as an issue to be addressed, and has recently taken action to
halt illegal logging. While the Government has sound policies
and strategies for forestry, fisheries and wildlife use, it has
recognised it is important to increase the speed of their implementation
to make impacts on reducing poverty and halt the degradation of
natural resources. Actions on this are included in the MKUKUTA.
Similarly in the use of non-renewable resources the there is a
need to strengthen the control and regulation of small scale and
large scale mining to mitigate any adverse social and environmental
impacts.
Climate change
Tanzania already experiences vulnerability to existing
weather patterns (droughts and floods) and work is already taking
place on mitigation measures to these existing risks. The Government
recognises the need to plan for adaptation to climate change where
predictions are that these risks will increase. It is developing
a national plan of adaptation and the MKUKUTA includes targets
on reducing vulnerability and interventions on this. Further action
will be required and the Government is setting up a series of
activities, including a conference on implications on climate
for Tanzania.
Water and Sanitation
The Government of Tanzania's own figures for water
coverage show an increase in urban water supply coverage from
67% in 1990 to 73% in 2004, and in rural water supply coverage
from 43% in 1990 to 53% in 2004. These figures are in line with
the level of progress that would be required to meet the water
millennium development target (MDT). However, past performance
is no guarantee that Tanzania will actually meet the water MDT.
The aggregate figures also mask considerable differences across
regions and districts. The Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics
(2002) put access to basic sanitation at 87% in both rural and
urban areas, however little progress has been made in the last
decade. Cholera remains endemic and piped sewerage systems cover
less than 20% of urban households. Sanitation at public institutions,
particularly schools and hospitals, often does not meet basic
government guidelines.
Next steps
The Government is now planning to develop and implement
a capacity building programme to strengthen institutions on environmental
management, to implement the MKUKUTA environment interventions,
and to comply with commitments under multilateral environment
agreements (MEAs), including climate change, to which Tanzania
is a signatory. Further important actions planned include:
o The integration of environmental issues into
local and sector plans and budgets to achieve MKUKUTA targets
and MEA commitments, including the preparation of guidelines on
mainstreaming environment for the implementation of the MKUKUTA
and development of public expenditure reviews on environment under
the new PER process.
o The development and implementation of environmental
economic and fiscal instruments.
o The development of waste management and pollution
control strategies and to put these in place.
o The full implementation of the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) processes.
o The strengthening of the poverty and environmental
monitoring systems, and preparation of state of environment report,
and development of environmental awareness and information programmes.
Development partners and the environment
Development partner architecture
Development Partners Group (DPG), attended monthly
by Heads of Development, is the focal point for sharing of information
and monitoring of environmental issues at a senior level by development
partners. Under this there is a sub group on environment presently
chaired by DANIDA, with 11 other donor members. This group is
the principal technical forum for environmental discussion amongst
donors. However. it is the stated objective of DPG environment
sub-group to work towards the establishment of a single group
on the environment chaired by Government, and in this regard it
is already working closely with the EWG. DFID as member of the
DPG is kept up to date on environmental issues through technical
briefs provided by the sub group. For example briefs were prepared
in 2005 on environmental governance, and a study on environment
and growth commissioned by the World Bank highlighted the impacts
of weak environmental governance on the loss of revenue and livelihood
opportunities for poor.
Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS):
Disbursement of direct budget support itself has
no direct environmental impact but is a fully fungible contribution
to financing the GoT budget. It is therefore impossible to distinguish
the environment impact of DFID's PRBS from the impact of GoT expenditure
as a whole. Therefore the focus has to be on how government addresses
environmental issues.
In the original Performance Assessment Framework
for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit (PRSC) and PRBS the
World Bank and government included actions on the environment.
These were used by other donors to monitor their budget support.
The DPG sub group on the environment has been working with Government
Environment Working Group on how environment is addressed under
the new Performance Assessment Framework and the Joint Assistance
Strategy (JAS).
The PRSC/PRBS support Government's efforts on environment
through a three-pronged strategy involving (a) mainstreaming of
environmental concerns into the poverty reduction process, the
budget process, and sectoral policies; (b) improved understanding
of poverty-environment linkages, and options for reducing vulnerability
of the poor; and (c) strengthened institutional capacity to integrate
environmental assessment (EA) procedures into sectoral strategies
and policies and specific activities at the district and local
level.
The use of the PRSC as a proxy for development partners'
review of environmental progress is an interim measure as the
Environment Management Act sets out clearly that the annual State
of the Environment Report (the first being completed in March
06) will provide annual monitorable indicators which partners
can utilize. These will also feed into the poverty-environment
indicators of the PMS which will be monitored by DFID.
Next steps:
Through the leadership of the DPG sub group on environment
(presently chaired by Danida) and our membership of the PRBS and
DPG forum we will support the actions by Government summarised
in the previous section. Specifically DFID will:
o Participate in a dialogue through the DPG on
how environmental management and sustainability issues are being
addressed, and specifically DFID will in meetings with the development
partners on PRSC/PRBS reviews check that the donors leading on
environment have reviewed progress with GoT against agreed environmental
actions as noted in the new PAF and/or in the PRSC.
o Through the head of DFID Tanzania, continue
to access environmental briefing through the DPG meetings, and
monitor progress towards the creation of a single group on the
environment chaired by Government as part of the overall changes
to singe working groups as part of the JAS .
o Monitor progress on the JAS such that under
division of labour a sufficient core group of donors maintains
their technical competence and expertise on environment management
to work with Government.
o As part of its routine work with Government
and partners on the development and strengthening of the PMS,
monitor progress on the inclusion of poverty-environment indicators
in the PMS.
o Work within the DPG governance group on ensuring
links with DPG environment group for joint work on environmental
governance where appropriate.
o Work with the British High Commission (BHC)
to ensure consistent UK engagement on environmental governance.
Any other comments:
Section C - Sign off
Environment adviser: David Howlett Date : 3 Feb
2006
Lead project officer: Ian Shapiro Date: 3
Feb 2006
PROJECT TITLE: UGANDA POVERTY REDUCTION BUDGET
SUPPORT (PRBS) 2004/05 ONWARDS
Section A - Basic Information
Project Title:
Uganda Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) 2004/05
onwards
Project Cost: £145m 2004/05-2006/07 (£40m
in 2004/05)
Duration: 2004/05 onwards: rolling three
year prgramme
Country: Uganda
Department: DFID Uganda
Lead Project/Project Officer: Jonathan Beynon
Officer responsible for environmental screening:
Tim Sumner
Brief description of intervention:
PRBS to enhance GoU institutional and financial capacity
to implement the PEAP (Poverty Reduction Action Plan) and reduce
poverty
Section B - Assessment
Environmental issues:
In terms of progress towards MDG 7 on environmental
sustainability, Uganda is making variable progress. While it
is currently on track to achieve Target 10 on safe access to water,
the same cannot be said for Targets 9 and 11 or the WSSD 2002
additional target relating to sanitation.
Disbursement of direct Budget Support itself has
no direct environmental impact but is a fully fungible significant
contribution to financing of the GOU budget. It is therefore impossible
to distinguish the environmental impact of DFID PRBS from the
impact of GOU expenditure as a whole. Ensuring that Government
systems are capable to address issues of environmental sustainability
is essential for budget support donors given sustainable development
as a core principle in their development assistance. The I-CAP
risk assessment notes the risk of short-term economic growth being
pursued at the expense of environmental sustainability.
Economic growth is at the heart of GoU strategy to
tackle poverty. Uganda's aspired annual growth rate projections
are predicated on quality, abundance and sound management of the
natural resource base, given that growth is largely driven from
agriculture. This is likely to continue for some time, even with
a transformation policy to diversify and develop other economic
sectors. One of the core pillars of the Plan for Modernisation
of Agriculture (PMA) is focused on Sustainable Use and Management
of Natural Resources. There are linkages between growth, poverty
and environment that could threaten the sustainability of these
growth rates. Areas of concern include:
forest destruction, soil erosion, land degradation,
pest diseases and water pollution having a severe detrimental
impact on yields of export crops such as coffee, bananas and fish;
if availability of water and fuelwood decreases,
the poor must spend more time and effort in meeting daily needs
rather than in productive activities;
sustainability of current exploitation patterns
of Lake Victoria, a critical regional resource, regarding the
key economic services provides (agriculture, fisheries, transport
and hydro-power etc).
inadequate and inequitable access to and management
of natural resources is an important factor which increases tensions
and conflict between cattle herders and agriculturalists, for
example, in the Karamajong area
the overall net impact of climate change may
impose further constrain Uganda's development path if predicted
adverse impacts on water resource distribution and absolute agricultural
productivity.
Uganda participatory poverty assessments have revealed
the importance to the poor of a clean and safe environment where
they have access to its resources, and its relevance to achieving
human development objectives of the PEAP. Effective action on
environmental health issues, especially sanitation and hygiene
and indoor air pollution, can yield significant health benefits
with the implications for the wellbeing of the poor and their
ability to take advantage of economic and education opportunities.
Natural resources are critical to the rural vulnerable
and those operating at a subsistence level. These resources,
particularly common property resources, provide a key safety net
for the poor during times of hardship, and are an integral part
of their coping strategies. Degradation or constraints in access
typically disproportionately affect the poor.
Overall the PEAP demonstrates awareness of these
key environmental issues, but meaningful action of such cross
cutting issues remains a significant challenge. DFID and other
donors will need to monitor and engage on GoU's own environmental
management policies and capabilities in relation to the PEAP and
associated GoU expenditure. Many ENR issues relate to maintaining
public goods where a strong and appropriate government role, adequately
resourced is vital. GoU policy for decentralisation offers opportunities
for improved environmental management but also poses considerable
challenges.
Environment and Natural Resource (ENR) institutions
represent a diverse range of actors and a complex 'sector'. Overall
management of the sector is weak. The recent PMA review (October
2004) identified slow progress overall in implementing work relating
to the pillar on sustainable use of natural resources. The sector
is significantly disadvantaged in terms of the level of intra-sector
coordination and its capacity for effective engagement in national
budget dialogue and allocation processes. This presents a challenge
in ensuring adequate funding to ENR institutions, particularly
so given the absence so far of an ENR SWAP (although GoU is committed
to this). Transition from traditional project modality towards
a sectoral approach will require support and careful management.
With its history of support on environment and natural resources,
DFID, together with the WB, is seen to have a lead role in the
sector.
Next steps:
In collaboration with other donors, DFID will contribute
to providing support to the GoU to help ensure that environmental
sustainability is an integral part of PEAP implementation and
national policy dialogue, in particular through the development
of an ENR SWAP and the integration of ENR into PMA implementation
and investments, and into District level development planning.
In the context of DFID commitment to donor coherence
and harmonisation and the UJAS, DFID will seek to strengthen and
exploit donor coordination and collaboration on ENR issues, working
through the Donor Sub-Group on Environment. DFID support to non-state
stakeholders to have voice in policy dialogue and monitoring of
policy implementation will embrace ENR actors.
Support for improved analysis and pilots to inform
policy options and decisions will be included in the above work
with partners in such as areas as:
- role of ENR in growth and costs of environmental
degradation and cost/benefit analysis of investment in improved
ENR management
- sustainability of current management and extraction
patterns and monitoring of these patterns
- Environmental burden of disease study
- Relationship between ENR & rural taxation
and revenue capture
DFID financing may involve application of non-direct
budget support modalities such as limited basket funding and Strategic
Funds.
Any other comments:
Section C - Sign off
Environment adviser: Tim Sumner
Date : 25/11/04
Lead project officer: Date:
PROJECT TITLE: ZAMBIA - POVERTY REDUCTION BUDGET
SUPPORT
Section A - Basic Information
Project Title: Zambia - Poverty Reduction Budget
Support
Project Cost: £60 million
Duration: 3 Years
Country: Zambia
Department: DFID Zambia
Lead Project/Project Officer: Chris Murgatroyd
Officer responsible for environmental screening:
Brief description of intervention:. The purpose of
the proposed budget support is to support the government of Zambia
implement its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper aimed at ensuring
economic growth and poverty reduction.
Section B - Assessment
Environmental issues:
There are no direct adverse or beneficial environmental
impacts resulting from this project. However, there are maybe
an indirect beneficial impact. Restoration of macroeconomic stability
and growth will increase resources available for priority areas
identified in the Zambian Government PRSP which recognises the
environment as a cross-cutting issue.
Next steps:
Any other comments: No
Section C - Sign off
Environment adviser: Date:
Lead project officer: Chris Murgatroyd
Date: 14 Deecember 2004
