 Now, we will travel all the way to Uganda with the help of Mrs. Ezeza Kattorega from Macerare University. She's a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and Management in Kampala in Uganda, and she will talk about the case of Uganda. Very welcome. Case study from Uganda, which is a part of a bigger study that was funded by the African Economic Research Consortium to look at the impact of aid in Africa, specifically the impact of aid on the environment. This study will cover eight selected countries, and these are Mozambique, Bukna Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Botswana, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. I'm presenting a work on progress that I've been able to research on for Uganda, and I must say I benefited a lot from the database aid, for the aid.org. The background to this study, presentation outline. I'll go through the background, the objectives, the donor aid focus areas for Uganda, the distribution of aid across environmental sectors and preliminary findings. We've noticed that over the past 15 years, aid has been increasing to developing countries, specifically for environmental protection. In the case of Uganda, aid flowing into the country for environmental protection rose from 40 billion Uganda shillings in 2003 to about 80 billion Uganda shillings in 2011. In the case of Ghana, this rose from $85 million in 2001 to $225 million in 2012. So there has been significant increases in funding in the area of environmental protection. We've also realized that the actual share of resources allocated to environmental activities in our data in our countries is missing and we need to have some information of how much has been allocated to environmental activities and the impact it has been having for those sectors. We've also realized that the relative importance of environmental activities undertaken by donors is not well known and we go ahead to find out what is happening in these eight countries. Mozambican, Bukina Faso, we are not presented there. The objective of the study, the objective is to establish areas in which aid is flowing most. Then to examine how much aid has been allocated to the environmental sectors other than environmental protection, we are looking at the agricultural sector, livestock and fisheries, wetlands, forestry, transport infrastructure and water. Then we would like to see the interventions resulting from the aid investments. How successful have these projects been and we'd also like to find out the contributing factors to success and failure so that we can share the experiences and maybe help where replication can be done in other areas. The study went out to find the these effects for the 10 major donors for the country. Uganda has over 40 donors operating in the area but we chose the largest contributors to the aid base and these are the World Bank, the European Union, UNDP, then the US, the UK, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden. When we look at the total inflow of aid from the multilateral donors, we find that the World Bank has the highest followed by EU. Then when we look at the commitments for the bilateral, we have the US being the leader followed by UK, Norway and Denmark. Preliminary findings. The major focus areas for the multilateral areas, the multilateral donors, sorry, we find that 50% of the total commitments of the World Bank were directed to energy sector during the development of electricity projects, mini hydro projects, health, agriculture and the recovery of the northern part of Uganda. The EU aid mostly goes for humanitarian assistance, humanitarian aid. Then again, the World Bank has some role in control of assistant organic pollutants and conservation of biodiversity in the Albertine forest areas. The UNDP on average 60% during the period we considered was allocated to economic growth and poverty reduction, democratic and accountable governance. Bilateral. The US is mainly engaged in humanitarian support, provision of food aid, health support, governance and peace and reconciliation efforts in the northern part of the country. The UK is heavily engaged in the health sector funding, medical research and also the recovery of northern Uganda food aid and social protection. Sweden is highly engaged in poverty reduction, strengthening civil society organization, women and children rights. Denmark aid goes mainly in capacity building support in both the private and public sector, health management and poverty alleviation. Norway is heavily supporting the energy sector through rural electrification, the development of mini hydro projects, the support for the upcoming, the new developing oil and gas sector. It is also involved in capacity building, human rights, governance and gender and human rights. Ireland aid goes mainly to non-government organizations, social care and mitigation of HIV aids and peace and recovery in the northern part of the country. Then we looked at the percentage distribution across the environmental sectors and we looked at five areas here, agriculture, water, fisheries and livestock, forestry, natural resources and biodiversity and we looked at the average percentage of aid going to those various sectors. We've put these countries in ranking. The US has the highest percentage of aid going to agriculture followed by Denmark, Norway, the World Bank, UK and Ireland. The EU is mainly engaged in water and sanitation. Denmark, Norway and Ireland are engaged in fisheries and livestock and Denmark has the highest aid flowing into that sector. Forestry, Norway has the largest aid going to the forestry sector, mainly tree planting in the areas that have been affected by landslide and the beforested areas of the Albertine Rift Valley. Then natural resource and biodiversity. US has the highest percentage of aid going to that area followed by others. We also looked at the factors behind success of projects and these factors were supposed to come from both the donors and the recipients. We are still analyzing, we haven't got back all the questionnaires from donors so we don't report their responses here because we are still waiting for those who haven't returned the questionnaires but from the recipient sectors we asked them about the factors behind success of projects, interventions in the environment and those are the four factors that came out out of many of these respondents. The strong involvement of local communities in these projects, the strong commitment by government, involvement of donors in monitoring supervision of the implementation process of the intervention and the creation of a larger awareness of project goals by those who are the beneficiaries. Conclusion, we are looking at the period considered who didn't inject aid in the sector. For example we say that the UK, US, Ireland and Sweden and Netherlands did not commit any funds to the forestry sector. Then Ireland, Sweden and the Netherlands did not commit any funding to natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. On average the percentage of commitments to environmental sectors as a percentage of total was much, much small in most cases less than 10 percent. Specifically for the livestock and fisheries sector the percentages were less than one. That is the end of my presentation.