Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
Minimal benefits
This proposal does not propose anything other than that Uganda should follow the 20th century 'business as usual' development model of massive fossil fuel extraction and use, most notably by foreign companies. No comparison is made to rapidly advancing, decentralised and inexpensive renewable energy as THE 21st century alternative to outdated development models as proposed here. There is NO attempt to identify any possible negative effects ( all very well known!) and much of the proposal is disjointed and hard to follow how it all hangs together.I am surprised it made it through the previous round.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
This is a fascinating proposal because it deals with the exploitation of oil and gas to meet the SDGs, especially from a development lens, which is so important for so many African countries. I really do like the proposal, but it definitely needs to be a lot more critical of what could go wrong (and has gone in many instances around the exploitation of oil- Nigeria is Africa's poster child for this). Are there existing innovations and solutions that could maybe overcome all these challenges. For example, would it not be better to go completely decentralised renewable in terms of energy access for Ugandans- there would not be the implication of foreign companies owning local assets in a neo-colonial fashion and it would be easier to get energy to rural areas. Is this perhaps not a viable alternative? There are some interesting energy cases in the proposals that could really help you to think more innovatively in your proposal for overcoming the potential for neo-colonial, environmentally damaging oil and gas lock-in. This is a really interesting and relevant topic and so if you're able to design a proposal that fully takes into account the trade-offs as well as the synergies in meeting a set of SDG (currently yours meets 7,8,9,10, but compromises 13 because the carbon footprint will definitely not remain constant with the exploitation of oil and gas- biomass is renewable and so despite forests being cut down, it's possible to replace that carbon, but not in the case of oil and gas- so please also check your number calculations. I suggest finding another proposal to partner with to strengthen your case.
1comment
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Eric Mubazi Jan 30, 2018 11:31  | Proposal creator The following has been added to the proposal: A sustainable forest management strategy that aims at reducing deforestation and forest degradation while ensuring that more trees are planted in much of the unused land. This will include an emphasis on planting of fruit trees to provide food(fighting hunger), create employment and improved living(SDG8), acting as carbon sinks to preserve the environment (SDG13), some of these trees provide herbs as medicine(achieving SDG3) and overall sustainable development.
To the proposal costs, the passage below has been added:
|
