SUMMARY
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................i
List of acronyms and abbreviations......................................................................................................3
List of tables...................................................................................................................................5
List of figures..................................................................................................................................5
FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................8
General observations.........................................................................................................................9
1. Evolution of the logical framework of the project and parallel development of principles concerning
water resources and quality management.........................................................................................10
2. Project ownership by the beneficiary countries and capacity building;...................................................12
3. Present state of substantive results and scheduling of future activities;...................................................15
4. Substantiality and scientific coherence of the special studies;...............................................................16
5. External factors bearing on the implementation of the project..............................................................18
6. Lessons learned from the project..................................................................................................20
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................23
2. THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT...................................................................29
2.1 The Lake Tanganyika...............................................................................................................29
2.2 The riparian countries...............................................................................................................33
2.3 Genesis of the project................................................................................................................35
2.4 Other projects relevant for the Lake Tanganyika Project...................................................................38
2.4.1 The FAO/Finnida project GCP/RAF/271/FIN "Research for the management of the fisheries on
Lake Tanganyika (= Lake Tanganyika Research, LTR)...................................................................38
2.4.2 Other projects.................................................................................................................42
2.5 The international and regional water management context................................................................42
2.5.1 The situation at the international level................................................................................42
2.5.2 Cooperation on water in the SADC region...........................................................................43
2.5.3 Other regional initiatives in relation to water management......................................................45
3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................47
3.1 Project Concept and Design.......................................................................................................47
3.1.1 General findings..............................................................................................................47
3.1.2 Compliance with the national policies of the beneficiary countries............................................48
3.1.3 Compliance with the global policies on environment and water resources management.................48
3.1.4 The logical framework and its evolution from the origin until the present situation......................49
3.1.4.1 Formulation of objectives, outputs and activities.......................................................49
3.1.4.2 Objectively verifiable indicators.............................................................................68
3.1.5 Organisation chart and project organs: mandates, terms of reference...........................................68
3.1.6 Scheduling of outputs and activities....................................................................................74
3.1.7 The specific question of associating Rwanda in the project......................................................77
3.1.8 Partial conclusion on the project design...............................................................................78
3.2 Project implementation.............................................................................................................79
3.2.1 General findings..............................................................................................................79
3.2.2 Execution of the mandate of UNOPS as executing agency.......................................................79
3.2.3 Budget situation.............................................................................................................79
3.2.4 The intervention of FAO as collaborating agency..................................................................80
3.2.5 Support given by the local UNDP offices.............................................................................81
3.2.6 Institutional arrangements with the beneficiary countries.........................................................81
3.2.7 National ownership and institutional anchoring.....................................................................82
3.2.8 Use of the GEF inputs......................................................................................................83
3.2.9 External factors influencing (or having influenced) the project...................................................84
3.3 Substantive results of the project.................................................................................................85
3.3.1 General findings and recommendations................................................................................85
3.3.2 Baseline studies..............................................................................................................86
Mid-term evaluation mission
1
November 1998
3.3.3 Special studies................................................................................................................87
3.3.3.1 General findings and recommendations....................................................................87
3.3.3.2 Sedimentation special studies (SSS).......................................................................90
3.3.3.3 Pollution special studies (PSS)..............................................................................93
3.3.3.4 Biodiversity Special Studies (BioSS).....................................................................95
3.3.3.5 Fishing Practises Special Studies (FPSS)................................................................96
3.3.3.6 Socio-Economic/Environmental Education Special Studies (SE/EE SS)........................98
3.3.4 Capacity building............................................................................................................99
3.3.4.1 Training...........................................................................................................100
3.3.4.2 Equipment of national institutions.........................................................................103
3.3.4.3 Effects of the project on the national institutional frameworks......................................103
3.3.5 Regional agreement (Convention)......................................................................................104
3.3.6 Strategic Action Plan (SAP).............................................................................................106
3.3.7 General conclusion.........................................................................................................106
4. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................108
5. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PROJECT.................................................................................115
ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................................117
Annex 1: Terms of Reference...........................................................................................................118
Annex 2: Itinerary (actual)...............................................................................................................121
Annex 3: List of interviewed persons................................................................................................123
Annex 4: Summary of field visits.....................................................................................................130
Burundi.................................................................................................................................130
D.R. Congo...........................................................................................................................130
Tanzania................................................................................................................................130
Zambia..................................................................................................................................131
Annex 5: List of consulted documents...............................................................................................132
Annex 6: Genesis of the project........................................................................................................137
Annex 6.1: Recommendations of the 1989 International Symposium (English)...................................138
Annex 6.1: Recommandations du Symposium International de 1989 (Français)..................................141
Annex 6.2: Recommendations of the 1991 International Conference..................................................144
Annex 6.3: Project Selection Criteria Reference Sheet, 1992............................................................154
Annex 6.4: Project brief, 1993...................................................................................................156
Annex 7: Integrated Water Resources Management and Planning...........................................................167
General principles....................................................................................................................167
Water resources management system and action planning...............................................................169
Mid-term evaluation mission
2
November 1998
List of acronyms and abbreviations
BDI
Republic of Burundi
BioSS
Biodiversity Special Studies
CEPGL
Economic Commission of the Great Lakes Countries
CIC
Copenhagen Informal Consultations (1991)
CRH
Research Centre in Hydrobiology (Uvira, RDC)
CRRHA Regional Research Centre in Applied Hydrobiology (Bujumbura, BDI)
DRC
Democratic Republic of Congo
ECZ
Environmental Council of Zambia
EESS
Environmental Education Special Studies
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Finnida
Finnish International Development Agency
FPSS
Fishing Practices Special Studies
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographical Information System
GWP
Global Water Partnership
HDI
UNDP Human Development Index
ICWE
International Conference on Water and Environment (Dublin Conference, January 1992)
IFE
Institute of Freshwater Ecology
INECN
Institut National de l'Environnement et de la Conservation de la Nature (BDI)
IUCN-ROSA International Union for Conservation of Nature, Region of Southerne Africa
IZRM
Integrated Water Resources Management
LARST Local Application of Remote Sensing Technology
LTBP
Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project
LTR
Lake Tanganyika Research project (FAO-Finnida)
MRAG
Marine Resource Assessment Group
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
NFC
National Follow-up Committee
NGO
Non Governmental Organisation
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization
NPC
National Project Coordinator
NPD
National Project Director
NRI
Natural Resources Institute
NTA
National Technical Advisor
NWG
National Working Group
OAU
Organisation of African Unity
OVI
Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
Prodoc
Project Document
PSC
Project Steering Committee
PSS
Pollution Special Studies
RBA
Regional Bureau for Africa (UNDP)
R-TAC
Regional TAC (GWP)
SADC
Southern Africa Development Community
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
SARDC Southern Africa Research and Development Centre
SA-TAC Southern Africa Technical Advisory Committee (GWP)
SE-SS
Socio-Economics Special Studies
SS
Special Studies
SSS
Sedimentation Special Studies
Mid-term evaluation mission
3
November 1998
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee
TAFIRI Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute
TANESCO Tanzania Electricity Supply Company
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
ToR
Terms of Reference
UK
United Kingdom
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio, June 1992)
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special Session
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
URT
United Republic of Tanzania
USD
United States Dollar
WA-TACWest Africa Technical Advisory Committee (GWP)
WSCU
Water Sector Co-ordination Unit (of SADC)
WWC
World Water Council
WWF
World Fund for nature
ZAM
Republic of Zambia
Mid-term evaluation mission
4
November 1998
List of tables
Table 1: Correspondence between the ToR and the plan of the evaluation report
Table 2: Main characteristics of the riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika
Table 3: Immediate objectives, outputs and activities (Ref.: Prodoc, § D, pp. 25-33, 1994)
Table 4: Project Framework (Source: NRI Bid, table 14)
Table 5: Draft Logframe, Phase II (Special Studies and Strategic Planning)
Table 6: Comparison of the formulation of the immediate objectives
Table 7: Training undertaken until today by the LTBP project
Table 8: Summary of recommendations
List of figures
Figure 1: Characteristics of the Lake Tanganyika
Figure 2: The riparian countries and the coastal towns of the Lake Tanganyika
Figure 3: Working plan for the LTR project (October 1998 December 2001)
Figure 4: GEF Lake Tanganyika Project management Organization (Prodoc, page 20, 1994)
Figure 5: Organization chart of the Project
Figure 6: Organization chart recommended by the evaluation mission
Figure 7: Scheduling of the activities discussed during the TDA workshop in Lusaka (November 1998)
Mid-term evaluation mission
5
November 1998
FOREWORD
The mid-term evaluation of the regional project UNDP/GEF RAF/92/G32: "Pollution control and
other measures to protect biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika", requested by the GEF Unit within
the UNDP Headquarters' Regional Bureau for Africa and executed by UNOPS, has been
elaborated by two independent consultants1 based on the terms of reference prepared by UNOPS
and approved by UNDP (Annex 1).
The mission took place from November 1st to November 29, 1998. The route of the mission
appears from Annex 2 and the field visits from Annex 4.
The evaluation mission visited three of the four riparian countries of the Lake. The Congolese
shore of the Lake could not be visited due to the insecure situation of the region. The mission also
regrets to have not been able to go to Kinshasa because of communication problems between the
Lake region and the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, the mission has had
working sessions on one hand with all the members of the CRH scientific team of Uvira, who
were invited to Bujumbura, and, on the other hand, with the official Congolese delegation on the
occasion of the Trans-Boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) workshop of Lusaka. In this way
the evaluation mission has succeeded in having profound meetings with all the parties to the
project.
The members of the evaluation mission would like to thank all the persons they have approached
and who have helped them to fulfil their mandate; in particular the political authorities of the
beneficiary countries, the agents of the UNDP local offices, the national scientists and technicians
involved in the implementation of the project activities and the working team of the NRI
Consortium (the list of persons having collaborated with the mission is in annex 3).
The evaluation mission has noticed the great attachment and devotion of the national as well as
international operators of the project to the Tanganyika Lake and its conservation. Thanks to this
high level of consciousness regarding the importance of the conservation of the Lake, the
scientific activities have never been seriously interrupted in spite of the difficult and often also
dangerous working conditions.
The members of the mission send their special thanks to UNOPS and to the Project Coordination
Unit who have organised the mission and seen to its logistics in a most brilliant way despite the
above mentioned particular conditions.
Finally, the members of the mission would like to thank the local authorities and the populations
of the visited regions warmly for their reception and their availability.
The opinions expressed in this evaluation report are the authors' opinions. They do not
necessarily reflect the point of view of all the parties to the project. They are to be considered
1 Gérard Cougny and Niels Ipsen, respectively Project manager (environment and natural resources) and Chief
biologist at VKI Institute for the Water Environment, a non-profit institute affiliated to the Danish Academy of
Technical Sciences
Mid-term evaluation mission
6
November 1998
only as a reliable reflection and an independently formulated assessment of the present situation
of the project and of its future.
Mid-term evaluation mission
7
November 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presentation
This report summarises the conclusions and the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation
mission of the regional project UNDP/GEF RAF/92/G32: "Pollution control and other
measures to protect biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika". The project associates the four riparian
countries of the Lake: The Republic of Burundi, The Democratic Republic of Congo, The United
Republic of Tanzania and The Republic of Zambia.
The project is part of the second tranche of the GEF pilot phase, with a financing of USD
10 million and a duration of five years. The project is executed by the United Nations Office for
Project Services (UNOPS). The implementation is entrusted to a Consortium of British
Companies, led by the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) in cooperation with the Marine
Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) and the Institute of Freshwater Ecology (IFE), hereafter
referred to en masse as "The NRI Consortium".
The mid-term evaluation is made 3 years and 3 months after the official starting date of the
project (July 31, 1995, when the contract between UNOPS and the NRI Consortium was
signed). Considering the delays occurred in most of the project activities, the evaluation mission
does not consider the lateness of evaluation to be prejudicial to the pertinence, nor to the
usefulness of its analyses. However, the remaining period until the official closing date of the
project (July 31, 2000) is reduced equivalently. In addition to this, it should be noted that the
possibility of completing the project within the given time is one of the crucial points of the
evaluation.
The evaluation mission has analysed the history of the project, its present state of
implementation and the pertinence of the approaches presently made to achieve the pursued
objectives within the given period and budget of the project. But first of all, the evaluation
mission has focused on the prospects of having, by the end of the project, the appropriate
instruments and the required national capacities for enabling the riparian countries to manage the
exceptional resources of the Lake Tanganyika in a sustainable way within the frame of its basin.
From this perspective the evaluation mission has endeavoured to adopt a prospective instead of a
retrospective approach. The knowledge of the past and the genesis of the encountered problems
are important only because of the deduced recommendations for the future.
Many recommendations are submitted to the examination of the GEF Unit within the UNDP
Regional Bureau for Africa. Several of the recommendations have a priority character these are
presented into boxes in this executive summary.
All the observations and recommendations are repeated in the report in a synoptic table
indicating for each recommendation: who the observation is meant for (who is supposed to
implement the recommendation) and, if necessary, observations for the implementation. The
same table has a column referring to the chapters of the report where the arguments supporting
the observations and recommendations have been developed.
Mid-term evaluation mission
8
November 1998
Finally, according to its terms of reference, the evaluation mission has tried to deduce some
general observations and recommendations that might be useful for other ongoing or future GEF
projects. These observations and recommendations belong under § 5.: "Lessons learned from the
project".
General observations
In spite of the difficulties assessed in the project's course, the evaluation mission has noticed
that, thanks to this project, the Authorities of the riparian countries have become fully aware of
the exceptional character of the Lake Tanganyika and of the importance of focussing on its
conservation. All the authorities and stakeholders that have been consulted have resumed on their
own account the objective of protecting the Lake. That is why the evaluation mission finds that
in spite of the present problems2, the project must be completed in order to come up to the
legitimate expectations of the beneficiary countries.
The observed difficulties are not only a question of time and cannot be solved simply by a
prolongation of the project in order to compensate for the ascertained delays. The evaluation
mission estimates that the present situation of the project is giving rise for concern, not only
when it comes to respecting the deadline but also concerning the productivity of the working
methods and the quality of the expected results. This is due to several reasons: some are internal
and will be analysed in details in this report while others are out of the influence of the project
operators, in particular the insecure situation of the region.
In its present form (strategies, organisation and methods) the project is not able to completely
fulfil the stipulated objectives. The strategies, the organisation and the present methods of the
project need to be revised to lead to the expected results, namely tools for the joint management
of Lake Tanganyika meeting the present and future problems and exploitable by the riparian
countries.
The evaluation mission points out that the title of the project "Pollution control and other
measures to protect biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika" must not override that the project is part
of the GEF concentration area "International Waters". Being a project of the GEF pilot phase, it
has an innovative and demonstrative purpose which is not limited to the conservation of the
biodiversity of the Lake but aims more generally at a joint management of the Lake and its basin
by the riparian countries, according to methods that are transposable to other water bodies and
other countries facing the same type of problems.
Since the origin of the project, the project operators have focused on the scientific aspects of the
supposed threats against biodiversity. The aspects relating to the management of international
waters, in particular the institutional and legislative elements, have been somewhat neglected.
And yet it is the way of management by the riparian countries correctly described in legislative
and institutional terms and supported by a satisfactory knowledge of the dynamic of the natural
system of the Lake that needs to be in focus of the questions raised by the joint exploitation of
the international waters of the Lake Tanganyika.
2 Provided that the security situation in the region is not further deteriorated compared with the conditions under
which the mission has taken place (November 1998).
Mid-term evaluation mission
9
November 1998
Priority recommendation No. 1: Refocus the project on the GEF concentration area
"International Waters"
The evaluation mission finds it necessary to refocus the project on the GEF concentration area
"International Waters" and more precisely to aim at the joint management of a shared water
resource. All the activities and the results of the project should strive for this objective. The results
should be presented in coherence with the use that will be made of them by the policy decision
makers and the operators of the future managerial entity of the Lake.
Having identified the core of the project, the evaluation mission has pointed out five essential
points for the understanding of the present difficulties of the project in order to facilitate the
structuring of the recommendations that are relevant for the subsequent implementation:
1) Evolution of the logical framework of the project and parallel development of principles
concerning the management of water resources and their quality;
2) Project ownership by the beneficiary countries and capacity building;
3) Present state of substantive results and scheduling of future activities;
4) Substantiality and scientific coherence of the special studies;
5) External factors bearing on the implementation of the project.
A sixth point concerns the general lessons to be learned from the project.
1. Evolution of the logical framework of the project and parallel development of principles
concerning water resources and quality management
The structure of the project has changed much since the origin. The evaluation mission has
identified not less than six different successive versions of the project structure:
The activities described in the project brief from 1992;
The objectives and activities described in the project brief from 1993;
The objectives, products and activities as described in the Prodoc (1994);
The objectives, products and activities of the NRI Consortium's bid (1995);
The objectives, products and activities as revised in the inception report (1997);
The objectives, products and activities as implemented currently (November 1998).
A synoptic comparison of these different versions of the project design can be found in the body
report (§ 3.1.4). It should be emphasised that, at the end of November 1998, during the TDA
workshop in Lusaka (where the evaluation mission has attended as observer), the participating
countries asked for a modification of the project strategies and scheduling which might result in a
revision of the products and the activities. It seems indispensable that such a revision is based on
the conclusions of the evaluation mission.
The evolution of the project organisation and of the scheduling of activities reflect the weakness
of the threads that have guided the design and the implementation of the project right from the
origin. As mentioned before, the project is part of the GEF concentration area "International
waters" but it is the problem of biodiversity that has been put into focus, overriding the other
Mid-term evaluation mission
10
November 1998
problems. This original lack of clarity concerning the target explains the hesitations in the project
strategies and partly also the ascertained delays.
Priority recommendation No. 2: Reformulate and stabilise the logical framework
The evaluation mission proposes that the logical framework of the project is reviewed with focus
on the central problem that there is presently no framework for the management of the Lake
Tanganyika as an international basin. Such a refocusing also allows the project to be put back in
the GEF concentration area according to which the financing has been granted (see
recommendation No. 1). In this perspective, the protection of the biodiversity appears to be a
beneficial effect of a sound and rational management of the Lake and not the central problem of
the management of the Lake.
The evolution that has been observed in the project design has not taken into account the parallel
development of the concepts and principles of water resources management as stated in the
Copenhagen-Dublin-Rio process and refined since then. At the international level, the concepts
and doctrines have developed and been refined since Rio (see § 3.1.3 and annex 7). The principles
and methods for fresh water resources management that are shared between two or more
countries have been developed, particularly in the SADC region to which three out of the four
riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika belong (D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia).
Priority recommendation No. 3: Ensure the consistency of the project with the principles
for integrated management of water resources and with the pertinent conventions in this
field, at a world wide as well as at regional level.
The evaluation mission considers that the project strategies and the expected main results (a
regional convention and a strategic action plan) should be based on:
- the principles for management of water resources as stated in Dublin and Rio (Annex 7);
- the SADC protocol on shared water course systems;
- the International Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international
watercourses (1997);
As for the project organisation, the evaluation mission has noticed two different versions of the
organisation chart for the implementation (see § 3.1.6):
- the Prodoc version3;
- the version which is presented in the "Project Newsletter".
3 Contractually, the Prodoc is no longer the reference document since the signature of the contract binding UNOPS
to the NRI Consortium. Actually, the Prodoc comes in the last place after the proposal of the NRI Consortium, in
the precedence order of the documents that are an integral part of the contract. In this connection, the evaluation
mission draws the attention to the fact that the technical proposal of the NRI Consortium has not been forwarded to
the governments of the beneficiary countries. For these authorities, the Prodoc, being the only document they have
signed remains the reference document (excepted amendments resulting from the collective decisions of the Steering
Committee).
Mid-term evaluation mission
11
November 1998
The evaluation mission is of the opinion that none of these two versions reflects correctly and
completely the desired organisation for a project of this scale and that the present titles of the
organs and positions give rise to further confusion.
Priority recommendation No. 4: Revise the organisation chart of the project, write down
the mandates and/or the terms of reference for each organ as well as job descriptions.
The evaluation mission proposes a revision of the organisation chart of the project based on the
following (which is to be left unchanged until the completion of the project, without creating new
structures, nor new positions):
1. Respect for the hierarchical position and the exact functions of the different positions and
organs;
2. Compliance of the titles of organs and positions with their real mandates;
- For example, the present "National Coordinators" are in fact the "National directors" of the
project. The real national coordinators are the present "Assistants to the National
Coordinators" who do not depend on their authority since they are part of the project team and
are paid by the NRI Consortium.
- Likewise, there can be only one managing authority of the project, namely the Project Steering
Committee, consisting of the project parties (the four beneficiary countries, UNDP/GEF and
UNOPS as executing agency). The present "National Steering Committees" have no authority
to run the project. They are merely "National follow-up committees" whose main role is to
facilitate the execution of the project in their respective countries, to ensure the compliance of
the project orientation with the national policies and institutional framework and, finally, to
look after the implementation of the results.
3. Respect for the national institutional framework: it should be avoided that the project team
entrusts the implementation of certain activities to other national structures than those having
the official authority (see priority recommendation No. 7).
A revised organisation chart for the project is given in the body report.
2. Project ownership by the beneficiary countries and capacity building;
The present institutional arrangements for implementation are not likely to facilitate the
appropriation of the methods and results of the project by the political decision-makers and the
national experts.
Actually, each team of national specialists inside each country has only a limited and fragmented
view of the project strategies. The raw results are sent to the NRI Consortium in Great Britain.
The results are treated by consultants outside the region with a very limited participation of
national specialists.
Under these circumstances, the evaluation mission estimates that it will be difficult for the
national decision-makers and scientists to take over the managing instruments and tools whose
broad outlines they are still not acquainted with.
Mid-term evaluation mission
12
November 1998
Priority recommendation No. 5: Involve the nationals further in the definition of the
work programmes
The evaluation mission emphasises that the NRI Consortium has only got a temporary role as a
contractor of UNOPS, while the countries have a long term responsibility for the application of
the project results. They are therefore in the best position to specify their own needs and should be
associated as soon as possible in the use of the results. The working programmes of the project
should be specified in close collaboration with the decision-makers and the national specialists
according to the following elements:
1. the expected situation by the end of the project (the needs of the countries for a joint
management of the Lake during the post-project phase);
2. the national policies and institutional frameworks (see priority recommendation No. 7);
3. the capacities of the local experts; this will make it easier to target the needs for professional
training (see priority recommendation No. 8).
The evaluation mission finds that the recent recruitment of expatriate facilitators for coordination
of the special studies does not come up to the objectives of the project unless it is supplemented
by the positioning of regional counterparts4.
Instead of entrusting the coordination of certain activities to international experts, reducing the
national experts to the role of executing fragmented tasks, the evaluation mission recommends
that the progressive assumption of the coordination tasks by the national experts is initiated
immediately.
Priority recommendation No. 6: Make the best qualified national experts on the regional
level, work in close relation with the recently recruited facilitators.
In order to do so, the Project Coordination Unit should make an effort:
1) to identify the best qualified and recognised national experts on the regional level in the
different fields of the project;
2) to form two-person teams (expatriate facilitator + local specialist) in the four main fields of the
special studies (pollution, sedimentation, fisheries, socio-economy);
3) to make the local specialists intervene in other countries than their own in the same capacity
as the expatriate facilitators and in close collaboration with these.
The evaluation mission has noticed that the choice of national institutional operators is often
guided by practical short-term considerations and consequently it does not always respect the
official mandates of the national institutions. So, the choice of operators does not pay enough
4 The Project Steering Committee had recommended the recruitement of facilitators native from the beneficiary
countries. However, the representatives of these countries have not been associated to the selection of facilitators
appointed by the NRI Consortium and were simply confronted with the "fait accompli".
Mid-term evaluation mission
13
November 1998
attention to the problem of a sustainable follow-up and development in the framework of the
future management of the Lake.
Priority recommendation No. 7: Identify which institutions are (or will be) mandated to
fulfil each of the follow-up/evaluation functions that are planned for the future.
In case some of the institutions that are not presently involved in the project would be responsible
for some of these functions, a plan should be prepared and implemented in order to involve them
as soon as possible.
In case some of the present mandates should be modified (for technical, economic or practical
reasons or for specific reasons in relation to the needs of the management of the Lake), there
should be taken initiatives to make the necessary institutional (and statutory) changes.
The primary justifications of this GEF project are the assumption of serious environmental
problems and the realisation of the need for creating local capacities "around the Lake" in order to
handle these problems. Therefore, the evaluation mission emphasises that the capacity building
of the beneficiary countries plays an absolute priority part in the project.
Capacity building encompasses three elements: (1) establishment of the managerial framework for
the Lake (concepts and principles, regional convention, strategic action plan, establishment of the
Lake management entity); (2) mobilisation of the required human resources to ensure a new way
of management and a long term monitoring of the Lake; (3) equipment for the management entity
and the national structures with reference to the monitoring of the Lake and its basin.
For the moment, the capacity building is focused on the immediate needs of the project.
Consequently, the training of national experts is focused on data acquisition, and the equipment
of the national institutions has been defined based on these needs.
Priority recommendation No. 8: Target the training towards the identified needs for the
post-project phase
The evaluation mission feels that the training of national experts should not be limited to the
immediate needs of the special studies. It should also and especially consider the needs for
expertise in the post-project phase. To do so, it is important to define as soon as possible the
outline of the future management entity of the Lake (mandates and job profiles) and to start
training of a sufficient number of national experts to fill the planned jobs, taking into account an
inevitable loss rate owing to predictable changes in career (for example by training two experts to
the same type of job). At the present implementation level of the project the human resources of
each country are sufficiently well-known to allow an immediate identification of the national
experts to be trained.
Priority recommendation No. 9: Target the equipment of the national structures towards
the needs of the monitoring post-project as well as against the intercalibration and the
exchange of data
Mid-term evaluation mission
14
November 1998
As for the previous recommendation, the evaluation mission feels that the equipment of the
national structures should be designed not only according to the needs of the special studies but
also according to the needs of monitoring of the post-project phase.
For that purpose, the equipment should avoid any double use and be homogenised to facilitate the
intercalibration and the exchange of data between the riparian countries.
3. Present state of substantive results and scheduling of future activities;
At the beginning of its investigations the evaluation mission has noticed that the preparation of
the elaborating process for the strategic action plan, before the completion of the special studies,
did not allow the results from these to be taken into consideration and consequently deprived
them of any utility. During the evaluation mission, at the TDA workshop in Lusaka (23-27
November 1998), the beneficiary countries asked for a modification of the scheduling of the
project activities, which makes the special studies legitimate again.
Priority recommendation No. 10: Respect the logic order of the production of results
1) Compilation of the existing
2) Elaboration of the
data (incl. the national,
regional agreement
regional and international
4) Strategic action
legislative and institutional,
plan (SAP)
framework)
3) Special studies
The evaluation mission estimates that the results achieved till now, in varying degrees but in
practically all fields (legal and institutional framework, planning strategies, substance of special
studies, economic evaluation, participatory approaches), are not able to constitute a sufficiently
solid basis for a sustainable management of the Lake and its basin.
Priority recommendation No. 11: Make the synthesis of all the pertinent scientific
knowledge acquired till now, which is necessary for the definition of the special studies
and for the elaboration of management tools for the Lake
The evaluation mission considers that to date there is no summary presenting the basic data after
control of their quality and in a way that allows the decision-makers of the riparian countries to
exploit them. Consequently, the evaluation mission estimates that this work still needs to be done
and that it should be prioritised before producing the other project results: special studies,
convention, strategic action plans (see also priority recommendation No. 14).
Priority recommendation No. 12: Direct the production of project results towards the
needs for a joint management of the Lake
Considering the hesitations in the approach and the delays that have been observed to date, the
evaluation mission estimates that the project activities for the remaining project period should be
Mid-term evaluation mission
15
November 1998
concentrated on the needs for the Lake management by the beneficiary countries. All academic
types of activities should be concluded, no matter what may be their scientific interest, and it is
important to avoid all activities that have no immediate utility, either in terms of intermediary
results or in terms of final results exploitable for the joint management of the Lake.
4. Substantiality and scientific coherence of the special studies;
The project concept is based on three general hypothesis concerning the environmental impacts
that are threatening the Lake, namely: (a) the changes in land use has led to an increase in the
discharge of sediments to the Lake which has an impact on the biodiversity; (b) the pollution
damages the water quality and affects the biodiversity; (c) inappropriate and abusive fishing
practices affect the biodiversity.
The evaluation mission estimates that these three assumptions were relevant as working
hypothesis and that they justified the idea of the project considering the importance and the
biologic richness of the Lake. However, none of the three hypothesis was proved by the time of
the project formulation and still today none of them has been correctly documented.
Priority recommendation No. 13: Treat as a major problem of the project the question of
verifying (or invalidating) the basic hypothesis concerning the environmental impacts
that are threatening the Lake
Identification of the real problems and of their seriousness is the only way of defining the future
management functions. These functions require financial and human resources. However, the
resources of the countries in question are very limited in these fields. It is therefore necessary to
act with much discretion in order to avoid weighing unnecessarily on the resources intended for
the economic and social development, devoting important means to the resolution of minor
problems. The application of the "precaution principle" should be seen in this context.
As indicated above, the evaluation mission finds that the project has produced only little
documentation concerning the existing knowledge. The accomplished baseline studies, for
example, are in fact limited to inventories of data sources and to the references of previous
studies. Three years after the starting up of the project, the general hypotheses of the impact,
which constitute the basis of the project, have still not been evaluated based on the compilation
of existing data and the special studies are still not sufficiently advanced to give indisputable
results.
Priority recommendation No. 14: Complete the data bases regrouping the existing data
and install them in the appropriate institutions
The data should be compiled and the state of present knowledge concerning the introductory
hypotheses should be established (in order to serve as basis for subsequent studies). The
improved understanding of the problems should become a continuous process allowing to refine
the prioritisation of the management functions.
Mid-term evaluation mission
16
November 1998
Practically all the special studies have been started very late and certain parts of them have still
not been initiated. The starting point of the technical studies has been the methodological
workshop in August 1997. Most of the fieldwork has been started in 1998. Considering the lack
of precision of the existing literature, the evaluation mission finds that the special studies play an
important role in the verification (or the invalidation) of the basic hypotheses concerning the
impact as well as in the development of strategies for the future monitoring. As expected from
the origin of the project, the special studies constitute a precondition for the elaboration of the
PAS (see priority recommendation No. 10).
Priority recommendation No. 15: Maximum effort should be laid in a timely
implementation of all the special studies and the overall planning of activities shall
assure that they can provide the necessary background for the Strategic Action Plan.
The evaluation mission has noticed a certain lack of precision in the overall view of each theme of
the special studies and, in general, an insufficient knowledge of this overall view has been
observed among the national operators.
As indicated above, this is due primarily to:
- the position of the special studies in the general scheduling of the project activities and to
their lack of connection to other products of the project. This problem should be solved
further to the changes requested during the TDA workshop in Lusaka (see priority
recommendation No. 10);
- the lack of summary of the initial data supporting the special studies. This problem should
find its solution if the priority recommendations No. 11 and 14 are implemented;
- the insufficient level of involvement of the national specialists in defining and interpreting the
special studies. This problem should also find its solution if the priority recommendations
No. 5 and 6 are implemented.
In addition to these reasons, the evaluation mission points out that the present documents which
define the special studies, appear to be "standing instructions" to be complied with rather than
arguments on the "why" and "how" of these studies.
Priority recommendation No. 16: Prepare a document (as a supplement to the present
"standing instructions" concerning the sampling and the laboratory work) on the overall
technical approach and on the way the collected data may contribute to a better
knowledge of the problems and to the development of the future management tools.
The activities should be prepared in collaboration with the national counterparts in order to
guarantee that:
1. the approach followed by the project is clearly understood by the key persons of the levels in
question:
Fieldwork Data compilation Assessment/Evaluation Management
Mid-term evaluation mission
17
November 1998
2. the local knowledge is not neglected but is used in an optimum way;
3. the scientific approach itself is transferred to the involved national institutions.
One of the essential objectives of the project is to create a regional collaboration framework
between the riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika. It is desirable that the terms for such a
collaboration are tried out as soon as possible during the project phase and taking advantage of
the resources granted by UNDP/GEF.
However, the evaluation mission has noticed the unsatisfactory communication between the
national teams working on the same study themes in the four countries. The following priority
recommendation (no. 17) completes the priority recommendation No. 6 concerning the possible
intervention of the national experts in other countries than their own, aiming at a better
appropriation of the project methods and results by the nationals.
Priority recommendation No. 17: Prepare and implement before the end of the project
sustainable mechanisms/procedures for professional exchanges between the national
experts in order to meet from now on the future needs for exchange of information, of
experiences and of continuous harmonisation.
As a supplement to these general aspects of the special studies, the evaluation mission has paid
attention to each component of the special studies supposing that the scheduling of the results
and consequently of the project activities was put back in a logical order.
For each theme of the special studies the evaluation mission has examined the following
questions:
1. their justification (rationale);
2. the pursued goals, the methodology; etc.;
3. the present state of works;
4. the special points (methodological; scientific or technical) resulting in findings and/or
recommendations.
These different questions are analysed in the body report for each component of the special
studies (§ 3.3.3).
5. External factors bearing on the implementation of the project.
As mentioned in the introduction there are some external factors which are seriously influencing
the fulfilment of the project activities.
Firstly, the events in Burundi have had three effects:
a) The impossibility of carrying out the activities normally during the first years of the project
because of the insecure situation of the country. The country is still under the impact of a curfew
Mid-term evaluation mission
18
November 1998
but the evaluation mission has noticed that the present situation allows the project activities
(located next to the Lake) to be carried out normally since the summer 1998. Furthermore, the
Scientific liaison officer of the project is presently based in Bujumbura. In this connection, the
evaluation mission points out that if the security conditions in Bujumbura allows the Scientific
liaison officer to carry out his activities in a normal way, this should also be possible for the
Project Coordination Unit (PCU).
b) The transfer of the project head office to Dar es Salaam has had the effect of removing the
Project Coordination Unit more than 1000 km away from the Lake which has not made the
communication between the PCU and the field teams easier.
c) An embargo has struck the country since 1996 (it has been cancelled in January 1999 and the
internal situation is improving).
Priority recommendation No. 18: In accordance with the decision of the Project Steering
Committee concerning the transfer of the project head office to Dar es Salaam, the
evaluation mission recommends that the project head office is moved back to Bujumbura
as soon as the two conditions, which make it possible, have been fulfilled: lifting of the
curfew and of the embargo.
Secondly, the civil war in Zaire (today the Democratic Republic of Congo), has been concentrated
primarily to the Great Lakes region and has consequently prevented the normal carrying out of
the project activities on the Congolese shore of the Lake. In spite of the pillage of their
installations and of the risks they were running, the scientists of the CHR of Uvira have
performed feats to bring certain activities to a successful conclusion. At the time of the evaluation
mission, the situation is still insecure but there are hopes of a normalisation in the near future.
The high level of involvement of the Congolese scientists makes believe that by that time the
activities will be able to start at a rapid rate.
Priority recommendation No. 19: The Project Coordination Unit should already now start
preparing the scenarios concerning the restarting of the activities in D.R.Congo. Since
the human resources are already in place, the PCU should pay a special attention to the
procedures of a rapid transportation and installation of the necessary logistics in Uvira.
Thirdly, the evaluation mission draws the attention of the project parties (the beneficiary
countries, UNDP/GEF and UNOPS) to the particular problem of Rwanda. This country
occupies a part of the Lake catchment and is, in that capacity, concerned by the project
objectives. Originally, Rwanda was not associated since the view of the authors of the project
was focused on the Lake biodiversity and not on the management of the Lake within its basin.
If the present concepts and principles for integrated water resources management are respected
(see annex 7), then the need to associate Rwanda is obvious. As Rwanda is, however, not a
riparian of the Lake, it cannot have the same degree of involvement in the management of its
resources. But its position in the basin imposes the country a certain responsibility for the
conservation of the Lake. So, either the present activities in the Rwandan part of the basin
Mid-term evaluation mission
19
November 1998
(deforestation, erosion, pollution ?) have a confirmed impact, which would justify its immediate
association, or these activities might require, one day or another, a cooperation with Rwanda and
in this second case it would be advantageous to establish the basis for such a cooperation without
delay by associating Rwanda with the project immediately (in a form which still needs to be
defined and which takes into account the particular position of this country).
Since Rwanda sank into chaos in 1994, one year before the official start of the project, the
question of its participation never occurred. Today, the internal situation of the country is being
normalised and it is therefore legitimate to ask the question of Rwanda's role in the project.
Priority recommendation No. 20: The evaluation mission recommends that the Rwandan
government is invited to participate, as observer, in the next meeting of the Project
Steering Committee and that the practical details in connection with its association with
the project is put on the agenda for this meeting.
Priority recommendation No. 21: Considering the present state of progress of the project
and the necessary time for these recommendations to give the expected effects and
considering its experience with projects of this scope, the evaluation mission estimates
that it is necessary to prolong the project period by approximately one and a half year,
postponing the date of completion to December 31, 2001 in stead of July 31, 2000 as
originally anticipated.
This prolongation should be made within the limits of the available budget.
For that purpose the Project Coordination Unit should submit to the Project Steering
Committee a new working plan and a revised budget which comply with the new
deadlines and follow the direction of the above mentioned recommendations.
6. Lessons learned from the project
The evaluation mission has tried hard to deduce the general observations which might be useful
for other GEF projects.
In the first place, the evaluation mission has noticed and all the consulted parties have agreed
on this point that the origin of certain problems is to be found in the insufficiency of the
project document. The defects picked out by the evaluation mission are of different natures and
are reviewed in the body report; it would therefore be tedious to resume them here. Let us just
say, in order to simplify things, that the "good" intentions are not enough to make a "good"
project document and that the "set-up" of such a project deserves a very careful examination of
every line of the Prodoc. It is a pity that the deficiencies were not noticed during the instruction
of the dossier before the project was adopted.
Mid-term evaluation mission
20
November 1998
GEF should make sure that the project formulations respect the standards of the executive agents
(in this case UNDP) and that a description of the activities is elaborated with a logic scheduling
and in sufficient details to make an implementation possible.
General recommendation: It is essential that the Prodoc format is respected, not only in
its form but also in its logic. The executive agents of the GEF (in this case UNDP) should
make sure that the document is realistic and operational.
The evaluation mission has also noticed that certain problems can be attributed to the insufficient
communication between the executive agency and the beneficiary countries. The proposal from
the NRI Consortium is very different from the Prodoc which can easily be explained by the bad
quality of the latter. Such differences should have alerted UNDP and UNOPS and should have
given rise to a consultation of the beneficiary countries. As the proposal of the NRI Consortium
is an integrated part of the contract, it should as a minimum have been communicated to the
beneficiary countries in order to allow them to appropriate the new project formulation.
General recommendation: The contract documents describing the substance of the
project should be communicated to all the parties to the project, particularly to the
beneficiary governments.
Another important lesson to draw from this project is that UNOPS as well as UNDP/GEF and
the Project Steering Committee as a whole, suffer from their lack of vigilance at the time where
the project started to drift. The process of elaborating the SAP has been ratified even though this
process (which was adopted to produce some results in spite of the delays of the special studies
?) was not the one that was envisaged by the Prodoc, it had no scientific foundation and was far
to be logical.
General recommendation: The follow-up of the implementation is essential for the
success of a project. The contract documents (first of all the Prodoc) should stipulate a
number of objectively verifiable indicators allowing to make sure that the project is
progressing according to the schedule.
Without implicating the procedures of the international call for tenders or the capacities of the
consulting companies of the developed countries to run a project of this scope, the evaluation
mission deplores that the choice of contractor did not take into account the executive
arrangements with the beneficiary countries. The contractor was chosen on the basis of their
interpretation of the Prodoc without defining the roles of the national institutions and without
specifying the practical details for mobilising the national human resources, nor taking them into
account in the process of going through the tenders.
Consequently, the project could not start immediately after the signature of the contract as the
national teams had not yet been formed around the contractor. It took a long time (in some cases
Mid-term evaluation mission
21
November 1998
more than two years) to identify and recruit the national experts that are working on the project
today.
The evaluation mission is aware of the fact that the doctrine in this field has developed during the
past years and that the same procedures are not applied today concerning the choice of
contractor. Nonetheless, a special attention should be paid to the mobilisation of local resources
when it comes to projects concerning institutional strengthening and capacity building.
General recommendation: Projects concerning capacity building, like this one, should
rely on a preliminary evaluation:
1. of the mandates of the national institutions;
2. of the local human resources
The evaluation should be included in the Prodoc and serve as basis for the mobilisation of
national operators.
In case of international call for tenders, the choice of contractor must take into account
its capacities to mobilise around his own expertise the national institutions and experts
who are capable of taking in hand the results of the project at its completion.
Finally, in order to avoid any rupture at the end of the project, the evaluation mission finds that
it would be judicious to plan a follow-up phase (for a period at least corresponding to the project
period but handled by the national counterparts) during which the results of the project could be
tested. If such a follow-up procedure is accepted beforehand by the beneficiary countries, it
would be a guarantee for their engagement to implement the project results.
General recommendation: Projects concerning institutional strengthening, like this one,
should include a period for follow-up of the results, handled by the beneficiary countries
and intended to test the structures and the procedures inherited from the project. During
this period, the executive agent from the GEF (in this case UNDP) should continue to
make a reduced monitoring in close collaboration with the involved governments.
Mid-term evaluation mission
22
November 1998
1. INTRODUCTION
1. According to the UNDP/GEF rules and to provisions of the Project Document (Prodoc), the
GEF Unit within the UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa has decided to make the mid-term
evaluation of the project RAF/92/G32 "Pollution control and other measures to protect
biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika" (in abbreviated form the Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project
or LTBP). Two independent consultants5 have been asked to carry out this mid-term evaluation
(hereafter called the evaluation mission).
2. The official starting date of the project implementation is July 31, 1995, where the contract
was signed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (hereafter called UNOPS), acting as
executing agency, and the NRI-MRAG-IFE Consortium (hereafter called the NRI Consortium),
acting as implementing agency. As the project was planned to take 5 years, the mid-term
evaluation should have been carried out in February 1998. However, considering the delays in the
implementation of most of the activities and also because of the disturbances in the region, the
evaluation mission has been organised in November 1998, that is 3 years and 3 months after the
start of the project.
3. According to the UNDP/GEF rules and to the provisions of the Prodoc (section H, page 37)
the mid-term evaluation will be followed by a final evaluation planned to be carried out 4 months
before the end of the project.
4. The expected and achieved results of the evaluation mission are the following:
- An evaluation report (the present report) analysing the present state of the project
implementation and deducing the positive aspects of the project progresses, the difficulties
which the project has come up against, the possible improvements of the project design and
implementation
as
well
as
the
recommendation
concerning
a
better
execution/implementation until the end of the project.
- The evaluation mission should also act as capacity building tool for the principal parties
involved in the project, particularly the national/local institutions, trying to improve the
approach and the methodology of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). These functions
have been carried out by means of information and explications given to the project
operators by the evaluation mission concerning the guiding principles for management of
the fresh water resources6.
- Throughout the meetings with the scientific project operators the evaluation mission has
discussed the methods and procedures applied by the project teams and has given its
5 Dr. Gérard Cougny and Mr. Niels Ipsen from VKI Institute for the Water Environment, a non profit organisation
under the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences.
6 As set out in Agenda 21, chapter 18 (freshwater resources management and protection) and as enriched by the
global experience in integrated water resoruces strategic action planning (e.g. experience in Uganda, Vietnam,
Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, SADC Protocol on shared water courses, new international conventions in the matter,
etc.) and as formalised by doctrines and approaches of the Global Water Partnership (GWP).
Mid-term evaluation mission
23
November 1998
opinion on the most pertinent scientific and technical methods to achieve the objectives of
the scientific special studies (SSS).
- Furthermore, the evaluation mission has had several consultations with the national
coordinators of the hosting countries in order to improve the anchoring of the project in the
national institutions and to make the implementation fit better with the national
environmental policies and the national institutional and legislative frameworks.
- Finally, before leaving the evaluation mission gave a restitution of its findings and
recommendations to the national project coordinators of each country as well as to the local
UNDP office of the last visited country (Lusaka, Zambia, November 27, 1998).
1. The main purpose of the evaluation is prospective rather than retrospective. Based on the
present state of the project, the main objective is to make recommendations aiming at a better
implementation of the project (if necessary and if possible) in order to make sure that the project
will reach its final objective (protection of the biodiversity of the Lake Tanganyika) through its
development objective (establishing a joint management of the Lake) and its immediate objectives.
2. When arriving in the field, the evaluation mission has found that the working plan followed
by the NRI Consortium (implementing agency) was quite different from the one mentioned in the
original project document. Actually, the change in objectives, outputs, and activities of the
project from the formulation in the Prodoc until the present approach is due to internal and
external factors as mentioned below (see section 3.1.4).
3. Once the evaluation mission had understood the present logical framework of the project, and
in order to provide the correspondence to the terms of reference, it was decided to consider the
present state of the project from five points of view:
a) The history of the project and the evolution of its design and logical framework compared
to the development, at a world-wide level, of concepts, principles and directives concerning
water management;
b) The present state of implementation of the activities;
c) The ownership of the project objectives, outputs and activities by the host countries;
d) The pertinence of the scientific studies compared to the current objectives;
e) The external factors bearing on the project (for instance political situation, insecurity...).
1. Before travelling to the region the members of the evaluation mission have gained knowledge
of the project through a number of pertinent documents. These documents are mentioned in the
section VII of the Terms of Reference (Annex 1).
2. Furthermore, the Head of the evaluation mission has had a briefing meeting (by phone) with
Dr. John Hough, Coordinator for Biodiversity and International Waters of the GEF Unit,
Regional Bureau for Africa, UNDP Headquarters in New York. The Head of the evaluation
mission has also met Mr. Pierre Jullien, previous PMO (Project Management Officer), presently
based at the Regional Office of UNOPS in Abidjan. Throughout the evaluation, the members of
the mission have been in current contact with Dr. John Hough and Ms. Karin Svadlenak-Gomez,
Project Management Officer at the headquarters of UNOPS (New York).
Mid-term evaluation mission
24
November 1998
3. As required in the ToR, the evaluation mission has had consultations with the Project
national coordinators (NPCs) in each visited country (including the national coordinator of the
D.R.Congo met in Lusaka). As far as possible, the evaluation mission has discussed its
findings/recommendations with the NPCs before leaving Lusaka.
4. The evaluation mission has had a first briefing with the Programme Officer of the local UNDP
Office in Dar es Salaam (project headquarters) and has also had some consultations with the
Programme Officers of the local UNDP Offices in each of the visited countries. Finally, the
evaluation mission has had a last debriefing with the Programme Officer of UNDP local office in
Lusaka.
5. Throughout the evaluation, the mission has had meetings with the NRI Consortium's experts
permanently or temporarily present in the field.
6. As far as possible, the evaluation mission has had consultations with the national officials and
with the other actors (NGOs, individuals) who are not directly involved in the project but
nevertheless affected by its implementation and/or results.
7. The present report consists of 5 sections and 7 annexes:
- The present section 1 (Introduction).
- Section 2 (The project and its development context) presents the Lake Tanganyika, the origin
of the project and the practical details of its preparation and approbation by the four
governments, UNDP and UNOPS. The main characteristics of the beneficiary countries are
specified as well as the other projects, terminated or ongoing, which may be of interest for the
project.
- Section 3 (Findings and conclusions) presents the results of the analyses made by the
evaluation mission based on the following: (i) meetings with the project managers and project
operators; (ii) documents from the four governments involved in the project (environmental
policies, NEAP, water management policies, etc.); (iii) documents from UNDP, UNOPS and
GEF (Prodoc, contracts, Cooperation frameworks of the countries, etc.); (iv) project
documents (various scientific, technical, administrative and financial reports); (v) documents
from other sources (particularly doctrinal documents concerning the integrated management of
water resources, action plans of the water sector and strategies concerning nature preservation
in Eastern and Southern Africa).
- Section 4 (Recommendations) synthesises the findings and conclusions in a general table of
operational recommendations describing succinctly: (a) the recommendation itself
emphasising the priority recommendations repeated in the executive summary; (b) to whom
the recommendation is addressed; (c) comments, if any; (d) the corresponding section in the
report giving details of the previous elements.
- Section 5 (Lessons learned from the project) endeavours in the spirit of the "GEF Project
Lessons" to deduce the general recommendations that might be useful to the GEF in other
projects or in the development of its general policy.
- The annexes are the following:
Annex 1: Terms of Reference of the evaluation mission
Mid-term evaluation mission
25
November 1998
Annex 2: Itinerary of the mission (actual)
Annex 3: List of interviewed persons
Annex 4: Summary of field visits
Annex 5: List of consulted documents
Annex 6: Genesis of the project
Annex 7: Integrated water resources management and planning
Table 1: Correspondence between the ToR and the plan of the evaluation report
Questions raised in the terms of reference
Sections
2.1 Review and assess the appropriateness of the idea project's concept and design, the project's § 3 in its entirety
effectiveness in realising its five objectives7 and the extent to which they have contributed toward
the overall development objective.
If deemed necessary, the mission will comment on the relevance of the project objectives and
§ 3.1
activities and any other conceptual issue that might improve the project execution.
2.2 Review and assess the efficiency and adequacy of implementation arrangements and
§ 3.1 (in part) and
management of the project
§ 3.2
Review the quality and timeliness of inputs and activities by the implementing sub-contractor,
§ 3.2 and § 3.3
NRI, e.g. responsiveness of project management to changes in the project environment, work
plans and budgets are prepared and followed, etc.
Review the UNOPS execution modality of the project: evaluate UNOPS involvement in the
§ 3.2.2
project. The execution modality in terms of effectiveness and impact should be assessed, and the
evaluation team should make suggestions on what is necessary to achieve effective project
execution.
2.3 Review the results of the project.
§ 3.3
List the achievements of the project and assess their effectiveness in solving the perceived
§ 3.3
problems and limitations;
Examine whether the institutional set-up through the Regional Steering Committee and the
§ 3.1.5
National Steering Committees and Working Groups enhance full involvement of the countries
and provide a sense of actual ownership by the countries (if not, what mechanisms might be
used to accomplish this);
§ 3.2.6
Assess whether the project is producing its outputs effectively and efficiently: identify the major
§ 3.2 and § 3.3
factors which have facilitated or impeded the progress of the project in achieving its desired
results;
Assess project impact: Determine the effect of the project on targets groups or institutions: the
§ 3.3.4.3
quality, usefulness and sustainability of the projects achievements and outputs in terms of
improving the participating countries' capacity for a sustainable management of Lake
Tanganyika;
Determine the degree of support given by the riparian Governments in integrating the project
§ 2.2 and § 3.2.6
objectives and goals into the national development programmes and other related projects, and
how well the project fits into national development policy;
Assess whether Government inputs in the four countries, at national and local levels, were sufficient § 3.2.5
and how they should be improved. The contribution of UNDP country offices to the project should
also be reviewed.
2.4 Review the special difficulties faced by the project.
§ 3.2
7 The evaluation mission points out that the project has six objectives (see § 3.1.4).
Mid-term evaluation mission
26
November 1998
Questions raised in the terms of reference
Sections
Assess the extent to which the political and civil difficulties within the region have impacted project § 3.2.9
operations, both in terms of implementation and management of the project, and in terms of project
impact. Assess the extent to which these difficulties have limited the achievement of the project
objectives.
Mid-term evaluation mission
27
November 1998
Table 1 (cont'd.): Correspondence between the ToR and the plan of the evaluation report
Questions raised in the terms of reference
Sections
Evaluate the alternative courses of action available including, but not limited to:
§ 3.3.7 and § 4
closing down the project
limiting project operations to certain countries
continuing as at present.
2.5 Review the effectiveness of the indicators put in place by the project, vis-à-vis of the
§ 3.1.4.2
objectives, the outputs and activities, including objectivity, measurability, methodology of
analysis to determine the effect and the impact of the project, etc. The mission will make
recommendations to improve them if necessary.
2.6/3.0
Recommended future directions. Based on all the above points, the evaluation
§ 4 and § 5
mission should provide conclusions and recommendations.
The mission should record, in conclusion, any significant lessons that can be drawn from the
§ 4 and § 5
experience of the project and its results, especially anything that has worked well, as well as
anything that has worked badly and should be avoided in the future.
3.1 Make general recommendations on the execution of the project and the ways to attain the
§ 4
project objectives upon completion.
3.2 In accordance with the general recommendations, make specific recommendations on the
§ 4
future course of intervention of the project.
3.3
Make recommendations on how to strengthen the achievements of the project.
§ 4
2.
Mid-term evaluation mission
28
November 1998
THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
1.
Since the first concept of the project in 1991, water resources problems have attracted
increasing attention from the authorities and communities in Southern and Eastern Africa and
more generally throughout the world. A number of initiatives have been taken at all levels and
concepts for improved management of water resources have been or are still being developed.
2. Thus, the anticipated results of the Lake Tanganyika project, making it possible to achieve
the development objective, would, today, be seen as natural components of an integrated water
resources management (IWRM) strategy based on internationally and regionally acknowledged
principles.
3. The present section presents the Lake Tanganyika and the riparian countries and recalls the
main stages of the project genesis. It presents the most important recent developments and the
present global and regional context for management of river and lake basins. Annex 7 describes the
principal elements for modern water resources management (which the evaluation mission has
endeavoured to deduce from the ongoing conceptual discussions) in order to inspire the further
implementation of the project.
2.1 The Lake Tanganyika
1. The Lake Tanganyika is located between latitude 3°20' and 8°50' south and between
longitude 29° and 31°30' east. It has a length of more than 670 km. Its average width is 48 km.
The surface of the Lake is around 33,000 km2 and the average depth is close to 700 meters. With
a volume of almost 19.000 km3 the Lake is one of the largest fresh water stock in the world (see
figures 1 and 2).
2. The most remarkable characteristic of the Lake is its biodiversity. This Lake has the largest
biodiversity of all the lakes on Earth (vertebrates, invertebrates and plants combined). It contains
more than 1300 species of fish, invertebrates and plants among which 500 species do not exist
anywhere else (endemic species). There are at least 300 species of fish (new species are
constantly discovered) among which two thirds are peculiar to the Lake. Several of these species
and their genera do not have close relatives outside the Lake basin due to its long and complex
history. The complex ecosystem of the Lake in terms of number of species as well as in terms of
their complex interactions is without any doubt unique in the world.
3. The Lake Tanganyika is also a vital water resource for the riparian countries and for the
Central and Eastern Africa regions. It plays a key role in the economic activity of the region,
producing approximately 100 000 tonnes of fish. Fish constitutes the principal source of protein
in the region. The Lake also constitutes the basis of an impressive fish exportation industry for
the four countries. Furthermore, it is an irreplaceable fresh water resource for the local
populations. Less than one million persons are living in the immediate vicinity of the Lake but
almost 12 million persons are living on its side basin. Finally, the Lake is an essential transport
Mid-term evaluation mission
29
November 1998
link for the four bordering countries. The Lake is a centre for tourism (particularly for nature
discovering) and, potentially, a centre for spare time water activities (swimming, sailing...).
Mid-term evaluation mission
30
November 1998
Figure 1: Characteristics of the Lake Tanganyika
Maximum length: 673 km
Width: 48 km
Surface: 32 900 km2
Maximum depth: 1435 meters
Average depth: 700 meters
Volume: 18 940 km3
Mid-term evaluation mission
31
November 1998
Figure 2: The riparian countries and the coastal towns of the Lake Tanganyika
2.2
Mid-term evaluation mission
32
November 1998
The riparian countries
1. The Lake Tanganyika is surrounded by four countries: the Republic of Burundi, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Republic of Zambia.
These riparian countries are in different degrees of development but all four have a low human
development index (HDI). According to the latest UNDP world report they are occupying places
from number 143 to number 170 out of 174 countries. The following table 2 recalls the main
physical and socio-economic characteristics of the riparian countries. Information on human
development, institutional framework, and environmental policy for each of the countries could
be find in the political documents and plans established by the governments and within the
UNDP country cooperation frameworks (CCF).
2. Rwanda holds a special position. This country is not a riparian of the Lake and is therefore
not directly affected by its exploitation or its conservation. However, part of the Lake basin is on
the territory of Rwanda. In that capacity, the Lake is affected by the development activities and
the land uses in this part of Rwanda that have (or might have) a direct influence on the Lake. The
specific problem of Rwanda is discussed in § 3.1.7.
3. The four riparian countries have proved through their environmental policy documents as
well as through the meetings granted to the evaluation mission by the high-ranking officials of
these countries that they are giving high priority to the development of an overall programme
for the Lake Tanganyika.
4. The Lake is bordered by three national parks:
- the Rusizi River National Park (9,000 ha.) in Burundi;
- the Gombe River National Park (*** ha.) and the Mahale Mountains National Park
(*** ha.) in Tanzania;
- the Sumbu National Park (*** ha.) in Zambia
There is no protected area on the Congolese shore.
Nor is there any protected underwater area in the Lake.
Mid-term evaluation mission
33
November 1998
Table 2 : Main characteristics of the riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika
Characteristics
Burundi
D.R.Congo
Tanzania
Zambia
Surface (sq. km)
25 680
2 267 050
883 590
743 390
Population (1995 WWF)
6 393 000
43 901 000
29 685 000
9 456 000
Density (inhab./sq. km)
248.9
19.4
33.6
12.7
Demographic growth rate (%: 1970-1995 / 1995-2015)
2.2 / 2.6
3.3 / 2.9
3.2 / 2.6
2.7 / 2.5
Urban population (% of total/ 1970 / 1995 / 2015)
2 / 8 / 15
30 / 29 / 39
7 / 24 / 38 30 / 43 / 52
Urban pop. growth rate (%: 1970-1995 / 1995-2015)
7.0 / 6.0
3.1 / 4.6
8.6 / 5.0
4.1 / 3.4
Principal urban centre
Bujumbura
Kinshasa
Dar es Salaam
Lusaka
Population of the principal urban centre (1995)
***
4 241 000
1 747 000
1 317 000
Average economic growth rate 1960-1995
1.1
2.0
0.4
1.3
Public aid to development (USD/inhab. 1996)
33
4
30
68
Working population (% of total population)
53
42
51
41
Work incomes sharing 1995 (% men / women)
57.7 / 42.3
63.7 / 36.4
52.7 / 47.3
60.7 / 39.3
Access to information (radio/TV per 1000 inhab. 1995)
68 / 7
98 / 41
276 / 16
99 / 64
Food production index per inhab. (basis 100 in 1980)
81
84
80
97
Human development
Life expectancy at birth (years, 1995)
44.5
52.4
50.6
42.7
Rate of alphabetisation of adults (%, 1995)
35.3
77.3
67.8
78.2
Raw rate of scholarship (%)
(e) 23
(e) 41
33
(e) 52
GNI per inhabitant 1995 (Parity, USD)
637
(e) 355
636
986
UNDP Human Development Index 1995 (maxi = 1)
0.241
0.383
0.358
0.378
HDI Rating (among 174 countries)
170
143
150
146
Environment, water, energy
Cultivated lands (% of total surface, 1991)
52.8
3.5
4.0
7.1
Permanent grasslands*** (% of total surface, 1991-93)
35.6
6.6
39.6
40.4
Forests and woodlands (% of total surface, 1995)
3.3
76.7
37.9
38.6
Annual rate of deforestation (% 1990-1995)
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.8
(Number) and surface (km2) of protected areas (Cat I-V)
(3) 89 0
(8) 99 170 (31) 139 360 (21) 63 640
Population having access to drinking water (%)
52
42
38
27
Access to drinking water (% urban /rural)
92 / 49
37 / 23
75 / 46
64 / 27
Internal water resources (m3/inhab. 1998)
546
19001
2485
9229
Fresh water withdrawal (% of resources)
2.8
(.)
1.5
2.1
Net import of com. energy (% of total consump. 1994)
98
1
92
32
Fuelwood in domestic consumption (% 1990)
77
94
89
86
Other features
Lake Tanganyika surface (sq. km / %)
Lake Tanganyika shoreline (km / %)
First urban centre on the Lake Tanganyika
Bujumbura
***
Kigoma
Mpulungu
Population
(e) ***
(e) ***
(e) ***
(e) ***
Sources: UNDP Global report on Human Development 1998 and WWF; (e) = estimated
Mid-term evaluation mission
34
November 1998
2.3 Genesis of the project
1. It appears from the section 3 (Findings and conclusions) that one of the principal aspects of
the project is the evolution of its design and structure. The formulation of the Prodoc which
ought to be the reference for the project implementation is not very well situated between the
fundamental scientific approaches and the operational approaches. It is therefore particularly
important to analyse the genesis of the project in order to find out what were the original ideas
and how did they develop into the present situation.
2. The project, as it appears today, is the result of a long process that started in 1989. Before
1989 various scientific works had been carried out on the Lake Tanganyika (primarily in the field
of hydrology and fishing). The synthesis of all the scientific works concerning the Lake
(described as being activity No. 1.1.1 in the Prodoc, page 25) should have been elaborated during
the first year of the project implementation. Unfortunately, this synthesis has still not been made
at the time of the evaluation. The only available syntheses concern the data sources but not the
data themselves (see section 3.3.3 Baseline studies).
3. From November 29 to December 2nd, 1989, the International Symposium on Resource Use
and Conservation of the Great African Lakes was held at the Faculty of Sciences, University of
Burundi in Bujumbura. This meeting resulted in a certain number of recommendations that form
the basis of the present project (see annex 6.1).
4. In 1991, the International Conference on the Conservation of Lake Tanganyika was held in
Bujumbura. On this occasion, it was declared for the first time that the excessive fishing, the
pollution and the sedimentation represented the most important threats to the Lake (without
proving it, however, as for pollution and sedimentation). The recommendations resulting from
this conference became the basis for a joint action of the countries situated in the basin (see annex
6.2). The main recommendations were as follows:
- Create a Commission for the Lake Tanganyika basin;
- Carry out studies on the interactions between lands and Lake;
- Develop and manage underwater reserves;
- Carry out research studies concerning the conservation of the Lake;
- Study the relations between the development of fisheries and the conservation of the basic
resources of the Lake.
5. In 1992 (April or May?), during the workshop held at the University of Kuopio (Finland) on
the FAO/Finnida LTR (Lake Tanganyika Research) project, the concept of the GEF project was
discussed by Andrew Cohen (University of Arizona), Gaspard Ntakimazi (representative of
Burundi), the Chief Education Officer of the University of Kuopio (originator of the LTR
project) and a representative of the GEF. On this occasion the first concept of the project was
written and sent to the GEF unit within the UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa
(UNDP/GEF/RBA Unit).
6. In 1992, during the meeting of the GEF participant countries in Abidjan (December 3-5), the
project was officially accepted as part of the second tranche of the GEF pilot phase, with a
Mid-term evaluation mission
35
November 1998
financing of 10 million USD (see annex 6.3). The 1992 Project Brief (not reproduced here)
stipulates the fundamental elements of the project design. The main threats are identified as:
- Pollution (it is emphasised that the impact of the polluting loads is still uncertain);
- Deforestation and excessive discharge of sediments, which is supposed to be the reason for
significantly reduced levels of fish and invertebrates in the northern part of the Lake;
- Excessive fishing (three of the predatory species have shown a pronounced decrease in
population since the fifties).
7. The 1992 Project Brief stipulates that the immediate establishment of a Lakewide
conservation scheme with GEF support is critical for ensuring a long term viability of the Lake as
both a biotic and economic resource. Being part of the GEF pilot phase, the role of the project is
emphasised. This document is not structured in objectives, outputs and activities. The activities
to be financed by the GEF are described as follows:
- Local management framework;
- Water pollution monitoring and control;
- Biodiversity surveys, monitoring and maintenance;
- Training and education;
- Enhancement of capacities to monitor pollution and biodiversity;
- Addressing underlying constraints to Lake conservation;
- Development of a Lake Tanganyika Environmental Trust;
- Institutional arrangements.
8. 1993-1994: The establishment of the Prodoc is based on a new Project Brief dated from
September 13, 1993 (see annex 6.4). It is said that the overall goal of the project is to develop an
effective regional approach to control pollution and to prevent loss of the exceptional
biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika. The six objectives of the project are indicated as follows:
9. Establish a regional long term management program for pollution control, conservation and
maintenance of biodiversity;
10. Formulate a regional legal framework for cooperative management of the Lake environment;
11. Establish a programme of environmental education and training for lakeside communities and
environmental scientists;
12. Establish a tested mechanism for regional coordination in conservation management of the
Lake Tanganyika basin;
13. Develop a "strategic plan" for the long term management of the Lake based on a better
understanding of the ecosystem functioning, the impact of pollution on the system, and
improved knowledge of its biodiversity;
14. Implement sustainable pollution monitoring programme and conservation area management
plans.
15. In the 1993 Project Brief the activities are not organised in correspondence with the six
objectives. They are presented as follows:
Mid-term evaluation mission
36
November 1998
- Strategic plan
- Review of legislation
- Environmental awareness and education
- Regional coordination
- Sediment and chemical pollution control studies
- Fishing practices
- Patterns and structure of biodiversity
- Underwater reserves
- Long-term monitoring
16. During the preparatory assistance phase the Prodoc was written by the project formulation
mission8. In 1994 the Prodoc was signed (date ?) by the four countries, UNDP and UNOPS.
17. At the end of 1994 and the beginning of 1995 the process of the international call for tenders
and the studying of the submissions was launched, resulting in the selection of the NRI
Consortium as the implementing agency of the project. The contract between UNOPS and the
NRI Consortium was signed on July 31, 1995, which is the official starting date of the project
implementation. It should be noticed that this contract has been concluded based on the proposal
of NRI and not based on the Prodoc.
18. Actually, the contract between UNOPS and the NRI Consortium stipulates the order of
precedence between the different reference documents as follows:
a) the contract (letter of 31st July 1995);
b) the statement of work (attached to the contract as Annex II);
c) the contractor technical proposal (dated 14 Feb 1995) as clarified by the agreed minutes of
the negotiation meeting dated 26 May 1995 (both constituting Annex III);
d) the contractor financial proposal (dated 14 Feb 1995) as clarified by the Contractor's fax to
UNOPS of 20 April 1995, and as further revised in the Contractor's fax messages to UNOPS
of 26 July 1995 and 31 July 1995 (Annex IV);
e) the Project Document (Annex V).
1. It should be emphasised that the technical proposal of the contractor differs considerably
from the Prodoc. Nevertheless, neither the contract, nor the technical and financial proposals of
the contractor or the clarification documents have been passed on to the beneficiary countries.
Consequently, the reference documents are not the same for UNOPS and the NRI Consortium on
one side and for the four beneficiary countries on the other side. Concerning the substantial
activities, UNOPS and the NRI Consortium refer primarily to the NRI technical proposal while
the four countries refer to the Prodoc. This situation is, of course, detrimental to a good
understanding between the different institutional operators of the project.
8 According to the information obtained by the evaluation mission, the team that was responsible for writing the
Prodoc did not include specialists in integrated catchment management.
Mid-term evaluation mission
37
November 1998
2. During the Inception Workshop (held in Dar es Salaam in March 1996), the project
objectives, outputs and activities were reorganised. The Inception Report was not completed
until long after the workshop (the report dates back to January 1997 but according to the
representatives of the countries it was not distributed until much later).
3. From July 31, 1995 until today before as well as after the Inception Workshop the design
of the project has changed continuously according to: (i) the difficulties met by the project; (ii)
the changes in strategies due to internal reasons (see § 3.1.3: The logical framework and its
evolution from the origin till the present situation).
4. Finally, at the time of the evaluation mission (November 1998), we are faced with six
different versions of the project design:
5) The activities described in the 1992 Project Brief;
6) The objectives and activities described in the 1993 Project Brief;
7) The objectives, outputs, and activities, as described in the Prodoc (1994);
8) The objectives, outputs, and activities, as described in the NRI Consortium bid (1995);
9) The objectives, outputs, and activities, as described in the Inception Report (1997);
10) The objectives, outputs, and activities, as implemented today (November 1998).
The tables of § 3.1.4.1 set out the differences between these documents, which is one of the main
findings of the evaluation mission.
2.4 Other projects relevant for the Lake Tanganyika Project
2.4.1 The FAO/Finnida project GCP/RAF/271/FIN "Research for the management of the
fisheries on Lake Tanganyika (= Lake Tanganyika Research, LTR)
1.
This project is a large-scale project financed by the Finnish Agency for the International
Development and executed by FAO. The project, which has been going on since 1992, associates
the four riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika and includes various research studies and
developing elements that are interesting for the UNDP/GEF project, too. As indicated by its full
title, the LTR project is concentrated on the fishing problems and its activities in this field are to
a large extent overlapping those of the UNDP/GEF project. The headquarters of this project is
situated in Bujumbura in the same group of buildings as the UNDP/GEF project office. The LTR
project was initiated before the UNDP/GEF project. Its headquarters has been kept in
Bujumbura in spite of the socio-political disturbances that have gone through Burundi these last
years.
2.
After a large haul of results9, the LTR project is today in its final phase which is planned to
last until December 2001 (see figure 3). The content of the second phase (1995-1998) is
reproduced on the following page. As can be seen, the objectives, outputs and activities of this
9 The evaluation mission has visited the library of the LTR project and has been impressed by its "treasures" of
study documents on the fishing and the aquatic life of the Lake Tanganyika.
Mid-term evaluation mission
38
November 1998
project have several overlapping points with those of the UNDP/GEF project, particularly in the
following fields:
- Finalise management plan with, as output "a plan for management of the main commercial
fisheries on a mutually agreed, regional basis, for the socio-economic benefit of the four
lacustrine states";
- Establish long term monitoring programme;
- Full implementation monitoring programme under national execution;
- Establish Lake wide management institutions; ensure full participation.
3. The importance of the overlapping zones between the two projects has given rise to the
question concerning the risk of doing double use and the need for a close coordination between
the two implementation teams10. These questions were already discussed in 1996. They are
described in § 3.3.3.5 (Special studies on the fishing practices) and § 3.3.3.6 (Socio-economical
studies and environmental education).
10 All the more so as several national scientists, particularly in Burundi, are collaborating on both projects.
Mid-term evaluation mission
39
November 1998
LTR second phase / Deuxième phase du projet LTR
(George V. Everett & Dora Blessich, LTR Newsletter, No. 16, Dec. 1995; p. 13)
Mid-term evaluation mission
40
November 1998
Figure 3: Working plan for the LTR project (October 1998 December 2001)
2.4.2
Mid-term evaluation mission
41
November 1998
Other projects
1. According to the information obtained by the evaluation mission, the project offices in
Bujumbura are situated in the former premises of the Belgian project concerning the
establishment of the "Centre Régional de Recherches Hydrobiologiques" (Regional Centre for
Hydrobiology Research) within the framework of the CEPGL (Economic Commission of the
Great Lakes Countries). This project, aiming at the establishment of a permanent laboratory, was
terminated in 1996. A summary report, which the evaluation mission has not received, has been
published. According to the consulted Burundi scientists, the work focussed on systematics.
2. Still according to the information obtained by the evaluation mission, there is a Japanese
project in Zambia concerning the fishing sector. The UNDP/GEF project has no relations to this
project of which the evaluation mission has no precise information.
2.5 The international and regional water management context
2.5.1 The situation at the international level
1. The international community has acknowledged the severity of the problems incurred by
increasing demand, overexploitation of the resources, and deteriorating water quality and has
agreed formally to take action to protect the freshwater resources.
2. One of the most clear demonstrations of this was provided by the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, 1992. The main result of the
conference was the "Agenda 21" which, in its chapter 18 on Protection of fresh water resources
and their quality, lays down the key principles and recommendations for sound water resources
management. These principles and recommendations were elaborated, matured, and crystallised
through a series of preparatory meetings, in particular the Copenhagen Informal Consultation (CIC,
1991) and the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE, 1992) in Dublin.
3. As the protection and sustainable use of water resources was seen as a global problem, the
Agenda 21 recommended that all countries elaborate action plans, before the year 2000, in
accordance with the adopted principles.
4. Now, six years after the Rio Conference, the experience with the preparation of such
integrated and cross-sectoral water action plans is still limited and examples of actual
implementation are few. However, during this period, the necessity of seeing water resources
management in this new perspective has gained increased awareness among water managers
throughout government departments and organisations, and operational tools are being developed.
5. Some developing countries have decided to face the post-Rio challenge and initiated the
process of a new approach in water management. This has given rise to substantial developments
in this field, for example in Nicaragua, in Vietnam, in South Africa and in Uganda, and more
recently in Burkina Faso; country which has associated the other West African countries in its
reflections with the support of the Danish Cooperation Agency.
6. In Africa, the National Water Action Plan of Uganda (1993-94) is often quoted since this was
the first comprehensive post-Rio planning exercise and also due to the fact that experience from
three years of implementation is now available.
Mid-term evaluation mission
42
November 1998
7. At the global level, the generally felt need to speed up action after UNCED led to the creation
in 1996 of two new and complementary member based structures on the international scene:
- World Water Council (WWC) and,
- Global Water Partnership (GWP)
These two organisations are expected to specifically target sustainable water resources
management problems, including the limited technical experience as well as gaps regarding policies
and concepts.
1.
Thus, the World Water Council (also called "The International Water Policy Think Tank")
seeks to develop strategies and policies for sustainable water resources management world wide,
whilst the Global Water Partnership concentrates on development and dissemination of
operational solutions for water management, donor coordination, networking of water
professionals, and information sharing (globally as well as regionally).
2. At the international political level, water has remained top priority. Most recently, in 1997,
after the meeting of G7 in Denver, the meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD) and after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the
environment, the problems concerning freshwater resources were further recognised as one of the
crucial problems of the world agenda, and thus water became a key topic at the CSD meeting in
1998.
3. Finally, the United Nations General Assembly adopted and opened for signature the
"Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses" in May
1997. This convention sets a number of obligations and principles for cooperation between states
sharing a common water course, i.a.:
- Obligation to cooperate on equitable use based on sustainable and reasonable socio-economic
development in riparian countries, preferably through agreements
- Obligation to prevent significant harm to the other water course states
- Obligation to assure free and regular exchange of data and information
- Obligation to inform and consult the other countries on significant planned developments in
the basin
- Obligation to protect and preserve ecosystems
- Obligation to cooperate on emergency situations (floods and other natural risks)
2.5.2 Cooperation on water in the SADC region
1. By the entry in 1998 of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC), three of the four riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika
and three of the five countries of the Lake basin have joined a regional collaboration framework
that is presently elaborating directions and directives for a joint management of the shared water
courses.
Mid-term evaluation mission
43
November 1998
2. The SADC region11 covers an area of 5.7 million km2 of which approximately 15% is covered
by inland water systems. The water resources of the region comprise fifteen large river basins:
Ruvuma, Pungue, Buzi, Save, Zambezi, Limpopo, Incomati, Umbeluzi, Maputo, Orange,
Cunene, Cuvelai, Okavango, Zaire and the Nile Rivers as well as some of the largest lakes of the
continent, such as Lake Malawi,/Nyassa, an important part of the Lake Tanganyika and part of
the Lake Victoria. In addition to these major natural lakes, there are large artificial reservoirs like
Kariba and Cahora Bassa on the Zambezi river. Including D.R.Congo, 12 out of the 14 SADC
countries share drainage basins with one or more neighbouring countries. Shared watercourse
systems yield approximately 70% of the region's water and are therefore the main sources of
water. Consequently, there is an increasing competition for controlling these resources among the
riparian countries.
3. In response to the increasing needs for a collaborative effort on the management of the
region's water resources, the SADC Water Sector Coordination Unit (WSCU) has recently been
established (August 1996) as an individual sector with its own Committee of Ministers. The
WSCU acts on behalf of the Lesotho Government as secretariat for the Water Sector. There is a
technical advisory committee (the SADC Water Resources Technical Committee) which is made
up by the heads of water departments/ministries from the member states. This technical
committee meets annually to set priorities for the sector activities and approve the work plan of
the Project Coordination Unit.
4. The SADC-WSCU has formulated its vision as follows: "To attain the sustainable, integrated
planning, development, utilisation and management of water resources that contribute to the
attainment of SADC's overall objective of an integrated economy on the basis of balance, equity
and mutual benefit for all member States". The objectives are: "To promote cooperation in all
water matters in the SADC region for the sustainable and equitable development, utilisation and
management of water resources and contribute to the elevation of the quality of life of the people
of the SADC region".
5. The Terms of Reference for the SADC-WSCU has recently (February 1997) been approved
by the Council of Ministers. They emphasise the role of Unit as a facilitator of the integrated
planning, management, development and equitable use of water resources at regional as well as
national level. The functions of the SADC-WSCU are specified within areas such as research,
preparation and coordination of regional programmes, mobilisation of financial resources,
guidance, mediation of conflicts, capacity building etc. A specific task for the Unit is the
monitoring of and assistance to the implementation of the SADC Protocol on Shared Water
Course Systems, which is of particular interest for the Lake Tanganyika Strategic Action Plan
(SAP).
6. The SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses has until now been signed by 11 of the member
states and is soon ratified by the two thirds of the member countries necessary to make it
operational. The Protocol sets the framework for utilisation of water courses shared by two or
more member states and it emphasises the following principles:
- the right of each member state to utilise shared water courses
11 These figures have not yet been updated after D.R.Congo became member of SADC
Mid-term evaluation mission
44
November 1998
- maintenance of a balance between development and conservation
- collaboration between riparian member states on developments affecting shared water courses
- free exchange of relevant resources information between riparian countries
- equitable exploitation.
Furthermore, the Protocol states a number of specific obligations for the member states on e.g.
prevention of pollution, elaboration of impact assessments, prevention of introduction of alien
species, notification in emergency situations, etc.
1. At the organisational level, the protocol obliges the members states to establish necessary
institutions for implementation of the provisions of the protocol and specifies their general
objectives and functions. More specifically, the following institutions are envisaged:
- a Monitoring Unit for the implementation of the Protocol based on SADC-WSCU;
- river/lake basin committees between basin states in respect to each drainage basin
- river authorities or boards in respect to each drainage basin
2.
The Protocol on shared watercourse systems is given high priority by the member states as
a means of developing sustainable water resources management for the regions scarce water
resources and for reducing conflicts concerning the control of these resources. It is in the interests
of the states that the Protocol be implemented rapidly and by all member states sharing water
resources. The protocol itself does not identify how it should be implemented and there is a
number of areas in the region where there is a need for development of practical experience. In
response to this, the SADC-WSCU is presently preparing a programme for promotion (and
development) of integrated water resources management approaches suitable for the Southern
Africa Region as well as a programme for assisting the implementation of the Protocol.
2.5.3 Other regional initiatives in relation to water management
1. Whilst the SADC-WSCU constitutes the formal regional collaboration structure on water,
collaboration on water takes place among a number of other organisations having interest in the
regional aspects of water and environment. Examples are the regional NGOs such as the World
Conservation Union (IUCN ROSA), the Environmental Resource Centre of SARDC (Southern
African Research and Documentation Centre), and WWF - Southern Africa.
2. Moreover, in 1996 the Global Water Partnership (GWP) initiated, in consultation with
SADC-WSCU, a regional collaboration in Southern Africa which resulted in the establishment of
a regional GWP Technical Advisory Committee called "South Africa Technical Advisory
Committee" (SA-TAC). The SATAC consists of 12 water professionals from the region. The
aim of the SA-TAC is to assist governments and organisations from the region in the promotion
of IWRM through identification and networking of expertise and through establishment of close
links to the international developments at a global level within the area.
3. The SA-TAC is a member of the GWP regional TAC family, which is being established
gradually all over the world. Being the first in Africa, the SA-TAC is already operational whilst a
West African TAC is under preparation and interest has been expressed from the East African
countries to form a TAC for that region, too.
Mid-term evaluation mission
45
November 1998
4. Besides their role as regional facilitators for IWRM, the regional TACs links the regions to
the global initiatives such as the World Water Vision exercise (initiated by WWC and GWP
jointly) and the global mapping of constraints to IWRM (initiated by GWP) which together
should lead to a more efficient allocation of international funds to the water sector.
5. Finally, some very recent initiatives specifically supporting water resources management
includes: The establishment of a regional consultancy fund for Southern Africa12, the
establishment of a regional research fund, and the establishment of a regional water resources
research network (WaterNet).
3.
12 A Danida financed fund managed by Institute for Water and Sanitation Development in Harare, Zimbabwe
Mid-term evaluation mission
46
November 1998
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Project Concept and Design
3.1.1 General findings
1.
The evaluation mission points out that the title of the project "Pollution control and other
measures to protect biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika" must not override the fact that the project
is part of the GEF concentration area "International Waters". Being part of the GEF pilot
phase, the project aims to be innovative and demonstrative and is not limited to the objective of
conservation of the biodiversity of the Lake. The project aims at a more general objective of joint
management of the Lake and its basin by the riparian countries according to terms transposable to
other water bodies ant to other countries facing the same kind of problems.
2. The principal results expected from the Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project, as stated in
1991, is the elaboration of a regional agreement and an action plan aiming at an environmentally
sound management of the Lake. The Strategic Action Plan for the Lake Tanganyika should result
in a number of interventions (classified in order of priority) and the establishment of management
functions in order to cope with the major threats against the biodiversity of the Lake. These
threats have been identified from the origin of the project as being:
a) excessive discharge of sediments from the side basins in the process of deforestation;
b) pollution
c) excessive and destructive fishing
1. The evaluation mission finds that since the origin of the project the operators have focused on
the scientific aspects of the supposed threats against the biodiversity. This is illustrated by the
fact that in the hierarchy of project objectives, outputs and activities the outputs such as results
of special studies are ranked at the same level as the Regional Convention or the Strategic Action
Plan although the latter represent the final results (outputs) while the scientific studies are only
intermediary activities to achieve such results. Therefore a reorganisation of the objectives and
outputs is proposed in § 3.1.8.
2. Because of the focusing on the special studies the aspects concerning the management of
international waters, particularly the legislative and institutional components, have been
somewhat neglected. Yet, it is the way of management by the riparian countries correctly
described in legislative and institutional terms and supported by a sufficient knowledge of the
dynamics of the natural system of the Lake that should be at the centre of the issues raised by
the joint exploitation the Lake Tanganyika international waters.
Priority recommendation: Refocus the project on the GEF concentration area
"International Waters"
The evaluation mission finds it necessary to refocus the project on the GEF concentration area
"International Waters" and more precisely to aim at the joint management of a shared water
resource. All the activities and the results of the project should strive for this objective. The results
Mid-term evaluation mission
47
November 1998
should be presented in coherence with the use that will be made of them by the policy decision
makers and the operators of the future managerial entity of the Lake.
3.1.2 Compliance with the national policies of the beneficiary countries
1. The evaluation mission estimates that the project, through its development objective, is in
perfect line with the national policies as far as environment and water resources of the beneficiary
countries is concerned, even if the reference documents of these countries (political documents,
national environmental action plans) do not explicitly mention the project as one of the essential
elements of their initiatives.
2. The evaluation mission points out that the relations which should exist between the project
implementation (at regional or international level) and other activities concerning development,
environmental protection or water resources management, are not very clearly mentioned in the
project activities, nor in the documents or other outputs resulting from the project.
3. In this way, the riparian countries are involved in the LTR project but the formal link
between the LTR project and the UNDP/GEF project has not been established. That is why the
LTR project, on the one hand, is preparing a regional agreement on the fisheries in Lake
Tanganyika, while such an agreement should in fact constitute one of the components of the
general agreement of the integrated resources management of the Lake.
4. Likewise, the membership of three out of the four riparian countries of the SADC Protocol
on management of shared water course systems is not explicitly taken into consideration in the
preparation of the Regional Convention. The Southern Africa Technical Advisory Committee
(SA-TAC) initiated by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) has not been consulted.
5. The evaluation mission has had discussions with the highest authorities of the Tanzanian
water sector, revealing that these authorities are not very well informed about the project and,
vice versa the project does not take into consideration the new orientations of the water policy,
in particular the recent decision to progressively pass on to the establishment of basin organisms.
The collaboration is limited to the employment by the project of a hydrologist in Gombe to take
care of the collection and transmission of data.
6. In brief, the project is in line with the national policies of the beneficiary countries but the
compartmentalisation of its activities is detrimental to the potentiality of the efforts and to the
synergies supposed to be established to the other activities of the riparian countries as far as
water and environment is concerned.
3.1.3 Compliance with the global policies on environment and water resources management
1. All the beneficiary countries of the project have approved the Agenda 21 document resulting
from the Rio Conference, in particular chapter 1813 where it is stipulated among other things that:
"All states, according to their capacity and available resources, and through bilateral or
multilateral cooperation, including the United Nations and other relevant organisations as
appropriate, could set the following targets:
13 UNCED (June 1992). Agenda 21, Chapter 18. Protection of fresh water resources and their quality: application
of integrated approaches concerning development, management and utilisation of water resources., in French.
Nations Unies, 1993, pp. 142-161.
Mid-term evaluation mission
48
November 1998
a) By the year 2000:
i)
To have designed and initiated costed and targeted national action programmes [of
development and integrated water resources management) and have put in place
appropriate institutional structures and legal instruments;
ii)
To have established efficient water-use programmes to attain sustainable resource
utilization patterns;
b) By the year 2025:
i)
To have achieved subsectoral targets of all fresh water programme areas."
Agenda 21 also mentions four important water management principles, repeated from the Dublin
Conference and developed in Annex 7.
1. As indicated in § 2.5, the concepts and tools for integrated water resources management have
progressed considerably since the Rio Conference, at a global as well as regional level in
particular in the SADC region that includes three of the four riparian countries (D.R.Congo,
Tanzania, and Zambia).
2. Yet, the observed development in the project design has not taken into consideration the
parallel development of the concepts and principles concerning fresh water resources
management as stated in the Copenhagen-Dublin-Rio process and since then developed,
particularly in the SADC region. Any approach concerning management of the Lake Tanganyika
basin should be developed according to the IWRM principles and the experience accumulated at a
global as well as regional level. The evaluation mission finds that this should appear more
explicitly in the future approach of the project.
Priority recommendation: Ensure the consistency of the project with the principles for
integrated management of water resources and with the pertinent conventions in this
field, at a world wide as well as at regional level.
The evaluation mission considers that the project strategies and the expected main results (a
regional convention and a strategic action plan) should be based on:
- the principles for management of water resources as stated in Dublin and Rio (Annex 7);
- the SADC protocol on shared water course systems;
- the International Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international
watercourses (1997);
3.1.4 The logical framework and its evolution from the origin until the present situation
3.1.4.1 Formulation of objectives, outputs and activities
1. The project structure has developed much since the origin. The evaluation mission has listed
not less than six different successive versions of the project structure:
- The activities described in the project brief from 1992;
- The objectives and activities described in the project brief from 1993;
Mid-term evaluation mission
49
November 1998
- The objectives, outputs and activities as described in the Prodoc (1994);
- The objectives, outputs and activities of the NRI Consortium's proposal (1995);
- The objectives, outputs and activities as revised in the Inception Report (1997);
- The objectives, outputs and activities as implemented presently (November 1998).
A synoptic presentation of the last four versions of the project structure is given in the following
tables (table 3, 4, 5, and 6).
Mid-term evaluation mission
50
November 1998
Table 3 : Immediate objectives, outputs and activities (Ref.: Prodoc, § D, pp. 25-33, 1994)
IMMED. OBJECTIVE
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
1. Establish a regional
1.1 All existing
1.1.1 Review biological, hydrological and water quality information
long-term management
relevant data on
program for pollution
Lake Tanganyika
control, conservation
and its basin
and maintenance of
reviewed
biodiversity in Lake
Tanganyika
1.1.2 Review demographic trends and examine all sectoral plans in agriculture, forestry, industry, urbanisation and fisheries
1.1.3 Review present capability of host country institutions to identify gaps in equipment and facilities which need to be filled
1.1.4 Review all legislative aspects and any existing or prospective regulations on pollution control and allowable limits
1.1.5 Establish early contact with representative lakeside communities as part of a continuing process of dialogue and
consultation
1.2 Inception
1.2.1 From all the data assembled all the negative trends among processes influencing the Lake will be characterised and
Report based on
identified
all review data (3
to 5 months after
the project start)
1.2.2 From all the data assembled all the major gaps in information will be identified
1.2.3 Compile review data in Inception Report into a computerised database compatible between countries
1.2.4 Continually updating the database by results from the special studies GIS system for Lake Tanganyika
1.3 Preliminary
1.3.1 Dividing the Lake into zones based on use or known conservation value
Lake Basin Strate-
gic Plan (within 5
months of the
start of the
project)
1.3.2 Finalise work programs for special studies (see Immediate Objective 5)
1.3.3 Prepare and initiate four project centres, one each from the host countries around the Lake
1.3.4 Finalise a list of equipment and services for procurement
1.3.5 Itemise the future staff needs, in terms of number, discipline and level for trained personnel and draw the training
programme
1.3.6 Carry out (by NGOs) community consultations to determine their reactions and suggestions to the proposed plan
1.4 Lake
1.4.1 Selection of areas to be given National Park or other status as conservation areas (+ Nsumbu & Mahali)
Tanganyika
Strategic Plan
finalised
1.4.2 Instigate specific remedial actions to combat pollution problems and identify those requiring international cooperation
1.4.3 Harmonisation of measures to mitigate pollution and of pollution regulation
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 1
1.4.4 Draw up management measures for zones identified on the Lake
1.4.5 Draw up a legislative framework enabling these to be implemented in the four countries (see Objective 2)
1.4.6 The tourism and pollution control considerations may propose new infrastructure requirements (itemised and costed)
1.4.7 Identify and quantify the major long-term impacts and the most likely points at which those impacts will have their effects
1.4.8 Discuss with local communities to assess which elements in the plan will be are acceptable, meaningful and practical
1.4.9 Economic evaluation of costs and benefits of the plan with indications of budgetary requirements
1.4.10 Produce the final document of the Lake Tanganyika Strategic Plan, following approval by the SC and appropriate ministries
Table 3 (continued) : Immediate objectives, outputs and activities (Ref.: Prodoc, § D, pp. 25-33, 1994)
IMMED. OBJECTIVE
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
2. Formulation of a
2.1. Existing laws
2.1.1 Review existing laws for the protection of the Lake environment and other existing laws and regulations which impact the
regional legal framework
and recommen-
Lake
for cooperative
dations analysed
management of the Lake
environment
2.1.2 Identify shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of existing legislation
2.1.3 Prepare a comparative analysis for discussion between the 4 countries
2.1.4 Recommend a basic framework of Lake environment legislation for consideration by the four countries
3. Establish a program-
3.1 Increased envi- 3.1.1 Disseminate information through regular contacts between the NWG, NGOs and communities and appropriate material
me of environmental
ronmental aware-
education and training
ness among Lake-
for Lake Tanganyika and
side communities
its basin
3.1.2 NWG & NGOs will organise teachers groups among local schools, where appropriate ideas and material can be
disseminated
3.1.3 Produce (and refine as the planning process proceeds) specific printed materials for use in communities and schools
3.2. A cadre of
3.2.1 Establish an in-service training programme for technical staff to learn skills relating to Lake environmental management
trai-ned
environmental
scientists and
tech-nicians to
manage and
protect the Lake
3.2.2 Provide library and teaching support to the national universities to help them upgrade their programmes
3.2.3 Provide fellowship support to undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students and train African women scientists
3.2.4 Provide on-the-job training for present and new parks managers on the management of the protected areas
4. Establish tested
4.1 Mechanisms
4.1.1 Install a communication system, as appropriate, linking the 4 nat. project centres, national coordinators and project vessels
mechanisms for regional for regional
coordination in
coordination
conserva-tion
introduced and
management of the Lake developed
Tanganyika basin
4.1.2 Organise regular meetings of the SC and the TAC as an integral part of the planning and management processes
4.1.3 Prepare (+ approve by SC) recommendations to set up a system for coordinated management of the Lake environment
4.1.4 Prepare and distribute to all concerned a Newsletter in French, English, Kiswahili and any other appropriate local language
4.1.5 Carry out such other tasks as may be authorised from time to time by the SC
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 3
5. In order to produce a
5.1 Determination
5.1.1 Regular determination of the quantities of sediment brought into the Lake by the major rivers
full Strategic Plan for
of the biological
long-term application,
consequences of
some specific studies
sediment discharge
need to be undertaken.
These special studies
will also add to the
understanding of the
Lake as a whole and, in
some cases, provide the
baseline and framework
for long-term research
and monitoring
programmes
5.1.2 Satellite monitoring of lake-wide deforestation to establish the trends of deforestation and sediment discharge
5.1.3 Detailed analysis of the fate of transported sediment particles discharged into the Lake
5.1.4 Detailed analysis of the impact of suspended and deposited sediment in the Lake's ecosystem
5.1.5 Output to be added to Lake Tanganyika database/GIS system (see Activity 1.2.4)
5.2 Consequences 5.2.1 Identification and quantification of existing sources of pollutants
of chemical pollu-
tion determined
and predicted
5.2.2 Detailed analysis and modelling of Lake circulation to determine the fate of pollutant and sediment discharges
5.2.3 Add this output to to Lake Tanganyika database/GIS system (see Activity 1.2.4)
5.3 Patterns and
5.3.1 Prepare inventories of species by geographic distribution and habitat and estimate their relative abundances
structure of biodi-
versity in the Lake
with emphasis on
conservation
areas
5.3.2 Determine various criteria for assessing diversity in each study area and habitat
5.3.3 Study the underlying causes of the extraordinary biodiversity in the Lake and their implications for conservation of the fauna
5.3.4 Determine criteria for selecting areas to be protected; identify areas for inclusion in future reserves and delineate priority
areas
5.3.5 Output to be added to Lake Tanganyika database/GIS system where appropriate (see Activity 1.2.4)
Table 3 (continued) : Immediate objectives, outputs and activities (Ref.: Prodoc, § D, pp. 25-33, 1994)
5.4 Recommenda- 5.4.1 Estimate actual & potential impacts of commercial and traditional fishing methods on the biodiversity and stability of fish
tions for the mitiga- stocks
tion of damaging
ef-fects of fish
exploi-tation
5.4.2 Examine the numbers and species of fish taken by the ornamental fish trade. Estimate the present and potential markets
5.4.3 Investigate the possibility of using computer-based models to evaluate the ecological impact on fishing and other
exploitation
5.4.4 Identify and make recommendations on alternative (& less harmful) fishing methods and management strategies
5.5. Plans in other 5.5.1 Synthesise the present and future potential impacts on the Lake from the various sectors (on the basis of sectoral plans)
sectors examined
5.6 Prospects for
5.6.1 Carry a study on existing tourism potential around the Lake
the future of the
Lake management
investigated
5.6.2 Examine the precise economic role of fishing for men and women at village level & he traditional patterns of these activities
5.6.3 Made enquiries to the awareness and expectations of communities from the Lake and from the project itself
5.6.4 Examine the possibility of other income generating activities, whether from tourism, fishing skills, or other sources
6. Implementation and
6.1 Long-term
6.1.1 Identify need of further work & low cost means for monitoring significant threats following the completion of the project
sustainability of the Lake research and
Tanganyika Strategic
moni-toring
Plan and incorporated
programmes
environmental
management proposals
6.1.2 Consolidate the elements giving a continuing picture of the pollution impact on the Lake into an internat. monitoring program
which can be operated by the four partner countries themselves
6.2 Management
6.2.1 Make ecological surveys of the proposed reserve areas
plans drawn up
6.2.2 Define and reconcile local socio-economic interests relating to the establishment of the reserves
6.2.3 Prepare recommendations for specific reserve boundaries, access by user type and nature of concessions
6.2.4 Produce First Phase management plans for the underwater reserves
6.3 New underwater 6.3.1 Manage a new underwater component of the reserve at Nsumbu (Zambia) during project years 1 to 3
components of re-
serves established
and managed (both
the terrestrial and
underwater compo-
nents of the reser-
ves will be mana-
ged as one interde-
pendent unit)
6.3.2 Manage a new underwater component of the reserve at Mahali (Tanzania) during project years 2 to 4
6.3.3 Select at least one further reserve; Set up and managed it within the project, during years 3 to 5
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 5
6.3.4 Develop community participation programs to ensure local benefit from and encourage acceptance of reserves
6.3.5 Develop user facilities, such as underwater trails and interpretative displays
6.3.6 Produce underwater guidebooks for the reserves
6.3.7 Workshop of experts on tourism to discuss the potential of Lake underwater reserves for stimulating eco-tourism in the area
6.3.8 Prepare detailed recommendations with budgeting for sustainable operation of the underwater reserves
6.3.9 Provide specialised advice and support for management of the reserves
6.4 Involvement
6.4.1 Incorporate the local consultative groups & teachers' groups formed into management groups for conservation areas
and cooperation of
local people
ensured
6.4.2 Give all support to teachers and schools in order to change the attitudes of the on-coming generations
6.4.3 Analysis of the scale and distribution of any benefits to determine if the benefits are likely to reach the target group
Table 4: PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Source: NRI Bid, table 14)
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS
GOAL
1. The protection of the biodiversity of
1 By 5 years after end of project no
1.1 Reports of regional coordinating
1.1 Monitoring and necessary controls
Lake Tanganyika.
discernible loss of, or threats to,
committee
implemented in timely fashion.
biodiversity in the Lake.
1.2 GEF evaluation
1.3 Reports in scientific literature.
PURPOSE
An effective regional approach established
1 By 5 years after end of project the scale
1.1 Reports of regional coordinating
1.1 Actions recommended in Strategic
for the management of sediment
of the negative impacts from sediment
committee
Plan maintained and legislation enforced.
discharge, pollution and fishing, thus
loads and urban or agricultural pollution
1.2 Reports from pollution and
Coordinating committees maintained and
preventing the loss of biodiversity in Lake
limited and harmonised system of pollution
sediment monitoring system
effective.
Tanganyika.
controls and cross sectoral communication
1.3 GEF evaluation
adapted by four countries by two years
from end of project.
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS
OUTPUTS PHASE 1
1. Inception report produced based on
1.1 Issue of inception report by end month
1.1 Inception report submitted and
1.1 Mobilisation suffers no serious
review studies.
6
accepted
delays.
1.2. Strong support to project from
participating governments and
institutions.
1.3 suitable counterpart and local staff
available
1.4 Funding to project efficient
2. Preliminary Lake Tanganyika Strategic
2.1 Preliminary Strategic plan drawn up
2.1 Acceptance of Preliminary
Plan formulated based on detailed reports
identifying critical areas for project
strategic plan by Project Steering
on the history and current status of
attention; selection of major indicators for
committee and GEF
biodiversity and pollution in the Lake, and
monitoring and evaluation
studies showing the interdependence
between lake-based and other sectors of
the economy.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 7
Table 4 (continued): PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Source: NRI Bid, table 14)
OUTPUTS PHASE 2
3. Final Lake Basin Strategic Management
3.1 Final Strategic Plan presented 2.5 years after
3.1 Final Strategic Plan meets
3.1 Political will exists for
Plan produced identifying areas of
start of project.
participating governments and GEF
international cooperation to
immediate policy application, areas of
requirements
conserve Lake biodiversity
further study and baseline and framework
for long-term research and monitoring
programmes.
4. Cadre of scientists, technicians and
4.1 By end of project sufficient trained personnel
4.1 Project reports
4.1 Suitable trainees available
managers trained able to continue
available to implement recommendations in
4.2 Evidence of degrees and diplomas
in sufficient numbers
monitoring and management of reserves
strategic plan.
received
4.3 Personnel reports from participating
institutions
5. Community participation established.
5.1 Appropriate communication media and fora
5.1 Project reports
5.1 Communities willing to
Appropriate mechanisms for
identified in Preliminary Strategic Plan and
5.2 Reports of collaborating institutions
cooperate and collaborate with
communication between local communities
implemented by end of first year of project
5.3 Reports of national working groups
project.
in the four countries and their respective
national Lake management working groups
established.
OUTPUTS PHASE 3
6. Lake Basin organisation established for
6.1 Existence of suitable body with well defined
6.1 Documents relating to formation of
6.1 Political will exists to
continuation of essential long-term
ToR and funding mechanism
group
maintain group.
activities
6.2 Minutes of meetings
6.2 Funding can be secured
7. Pollution monitoring programme
7.1 Pollution monitoring scheme established with
7.1 Project reports
7.1 Funding for pollution
established
well defined institutional responsibilities and
7.2 Institutional work programmes.
monitoring scheme maid
funding mechanism , by end of project. 7.2
7.3 Legislation documents
available
Necessary legislation enacted
8. Economic Appraisal study undertaken to
8.1 Report of economic appraisal study issued
8.1 Report received and accepted
assess impact of project on local
communities
9. Mechanisms established for continuance
9.1 Descriptions of appropriate mechanisms for at
9.1 Project reports
9.1 Communities willing to
of community participation and support
least two local communities communicating with
9.2 Results of local community meetings
cooperate and collaborate with
the national working group in each country by end
9.3 Minutes of national working group
project
of Phase II Year 1. Final Strategic Plan to
meetings
contain tested mechanisms for communicating at
9.4 Final Strategic Plan
national and national-local levels.
10. A Cross Sectoral planning Forum
10.1 Lake management commission or similar
10.1 Documents relating to formation of
10.1 Political will exists to
established for inter and intra country
body established by end of project with well
group
maintain group.
communication across sectors
defined mandate and funding mechanism
10.2 Minutes of meetings
10.2 Funding can be secured
11. Lake Reserves established
11.1 Three Lake reserves legally and physically
11.1 Legislation to enact formation of
11.1 No local or political
established by end of project at Nsumbu, Mahali,
reserves.
opposition
and one additional location identified in Phase II.
Table 4 (continued): PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Source: NRI Bid, table 14)
ACTIVITIES
INPUTS/RESOURCES
1.1 Carry out baseline review studies
Details in main proposal
Budget documentation
To be provided in detailed PFs for
1.1.1 Biodiversity degradation
Implementation plan
each major output after mobilisation
1.1.2 Sector status and effect
visit.
1.1.3 Institutional capacity
1.1.4 legal framework
1.1.5 community aspects
1.2 Produce inception report.
2.2 Organise workshop2.3. Produce preliminary strategic plan
3.1 Undertake special studies:
3.1.1 Sediment discharge and consequences
3.1.2 Pollution of international waters
3.1.3. Biodiversity studies
3.1.4. Fishing practices and biodiversity
3.1.5. Socio economic and sectoral studies
3.2 Establish legal framework
4.1 Identify training needs
4.2 Select candidates and counterparts
4.3 Carry out on the job training
4.4 Organise scholarships
5.1 Establish contacts with NGO
5.2 Carry out community surveys
5.3. Establish community workshops
6.1 Identify requirements based on Phase I and II of project.
6.2 Draw up detailed TOR for group and membership
7.1 Implement recommendations in Strategic plan
8.1. Carry out detailed survey of benefits and costs at national and village
level
9.1 Implement recommendations in Strategic Plan
10.1 Draw up detailed TOR for group and membership
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 9
Table 5: Draft Logframe, Phase Two (Special Studies and Strategic Planning) Source: Inception Report, updated 2 May 1996
Narrative
Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)
Means of verification (MoVs)
Assumptions
Summary
Goal:
Protection of the
biodiversity of Lake
Tanganyika
Purpose:
(purpose to goal)
A coordinated
1. Strategic Plan developed on basis of
1. Strategy document discussed
Extra-project funding available for national
approach to the
special studies, accepted by Mid 1999
endorsed officially by 4 lacustrine
and regional action programmes beyond
sustainable
states
2,000
management of
Lake Tanganyika
2. Institutional and legal framework for future
2. Key legal measures and
Political instability and conflict do not
management in place by Mid 1999
institutional
impede regional cooperation
MECHANISMS
PUBLISHED
IN
GOVERNMENT GAZETTES
3. Nationally defined action programmes
3. Working plans and records of key
National institutions perform effectively in
underway by 2,000
national institutions
implementing strategic plan; Legal
measures and national action programmes
successfully control Lake basin environmental
degradation
Table 5 (continued): Draft Logframe, Phase Two (Special Studies and Strategic Planning) Source: Inception Report, updated 2 May 1996
Narrative
Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)
Means of verification (MoVs)
Assumptions
Summary
Outputs
(output to purpose)
1. Regional legal
1.1 Draft legal framework written and
1.1 Draft legal framework plus go-
framework
circulated by 8/97
vernment discussion documents x
established
4
1.2 Proposals for harmonisation agreed and
1.2 Formal proposals to
amended national legislation drafted by 1999 government and draft legislation
2. Regional
2.1 Proposals developed by 1999 for ongoing
2.1 sub-project documents
Regional legal requirements can be
coordination
extra-project funding of necessary regional
prepared by regional steering
effectively translated into national legislation;
mechanism
coordination and transnational action plans;
group
Legislative instruments effective in
established
controlling environmental damage and
curbing degradation;
2.2 National action plans incorporate
2.2 National Lake Tanganyika
Regional management problems, e.g. Lake
coordinated activities for trans-national
action plans and agency working
transport, fisheries, population growth and
management of lakeside issues by 1999
documents
displacement can be addressed through
coordinated national activities
3. Special studies
3.1 Socio-economic studies completed and
3.1 Participatory action research
Studies successfully identify opportunities
completed as basis
strategic implications assessed by 12/98
programmes underway at specific
and constraints for biodiversity protection
for strategic plan
sites in each country by 1997;
through pollution and sedimentation control
and stakeholder participation; lessons of
participatory action research incorporated
into wider strategic planning by key agencies;
recommendations of studies accepted by
national governments
3.2 Biodiversity studies completed &
3.2-3.3 specific MoVs to be
strategic implications assessed by 12/98
identified
3.3 & 3.4 Pollution and sedimentation studies
3.1-3.4 Special study reports and
completed & strategic implications assessed
strategic discussion documents for
by 12/98
each thematic area produced and
circulated by each country by 9/98
4. Environment
4. National environment education
4. National EE Workshop reports
Incentives exist for local people to change
Education
programmes x 4 underway by 1997, including
and workplans x 4 ; programme
degrading resource use practices; Enhanced
programme
NGOs and Government agencies reviewed by
review reports
awareness results in adoption of environmen-
established
1999, including: 4.1 pilot community level
tally and institutionally sustainable strategies
activities with monitoring system in place; 4.2
and improved coordination by key agencies;
training programmes for staff of national
institutions;
Major regional population : land resource
imbalances can be overcome
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 11
Table 5 (continued): Draft Logframe, Phase Two (Special Studies and Strategic Planning) Source: Inception Report, updated 2 May 1996
Activities
1.1 Legal studies
1.2 Draft regional legal framework developed
1.3 Harmonised national legislation proposed
2.1 National responsibilities and lead agencies identified
2.2 Regional coordination mechanism discussed and agreed
2.3 National action plans on lakeside issues drawn up
3.1 Regional socio-economic coordinator recruited by ?
3.2 Initial field investigations to fill gaps in baseline reviews, draw up work plan and methodologies for detailed studies by December 1996
3.3 National agencies commissioned to undertake special study components by 4/1997
3.4 Interim reports by 12/97 and 6/98, ongoing supervision, coordination and technical support by PCU/NRI
3.5 Shortest of aquatic protected areas drawn up by 12/97, feasibility assessed by 9/98
3.6 National synthesis and thematic overview reports by 9/98
3.7 Strategic implications of special studies reviewed by 12/98
4.1 National EE coordinators identified
4.2 Initial assessment of EE training needs
4.2 National EE workshops held and programmes draw up
4.3 Participatory investigations and awareness raising at village level; implementation and monitoring of pilot action programmes
4.4 Training and awareness programmes for staff of implementing agencies, including cross-lake exchange visits and study tours
4.5 Public awareness and schools EE programmes
TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF THE FORMULATION OF THE IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES
Project brief, 1993
Prodoc, 1994
NRI Bid, 1995
Inception report, 1997
Actual, Spring 1998
Phases I, II, III to cross with the Phases I, II, III to cross with the
six objectives:
six objectives:
1. Establish a regional long
1. Establish a regional long-
1. To establish regional long-
1. Establish a regional long
1. Establish a regional long
term management program
term management program
term management programme
term management programme
term management programme
for pollution control,
for pollution control,
for pollution control,
for pollution control,
for pollution control,
conservation and
conservation and
conservation and
conservation and
conservation and
maintenance of biodiversity;
maintenance of biodiversity in
maintenance of biodiversity in
maintenance of biodiversity in
maintenance of biodiversity in
2. Formulate a regional legal
Lake Tanganyika
Lake Tanganyika
Lake Tanganyika.
Lake Tanganyika.
framework for cooperative
2. Formulation of a regional
2. To formulate a regional legal
2. Formulate a regional legal
2. Formulate a regional legal
management of the lake
legal frame-work for
framework for cooperative
framework for cooperative
framework for cooperative
environment;
cooperative management of
management of the lake
management of the lake
management of the lake
3. Establish a programme of
the lake environment
environment
environment.
environment.
environmental education and
3. Establish a programme of
3. To establish a programme of
3. Establish a programme of
3. Establish a programme of
training for lakeside
environmental education and
environmental education and
environmental education and
environmental education and
communities and
training for Lake Tanganyika
training for Lake Tanganyika
training for Lake Tanganyika
training for Lake Tanganyika
environmental scientists;
and its basin
and its basin
and its basin.
and its basin.
4. Establish a tested
4. Establish tested
4. To establish tested
4. Establish tested
4. Establish tested
mechanism for regional
mechanisms for regional
mechanisms for regional
mechanisms for regional
mechanisms for regional
coordination in conservation
coordination in conservation
coordination in conservation
coordination in conservation
coordination in conservation
management of the Lake
management of the Lake
management of the Lake
management of the Lake
management of the Lake
Tanganyika basin;
Tanganyika basin
Tanganyika basin
Tanganyika basin.
Tanganyika basin.
5. Develop a "strategic plan" for 5. In order to produce a full
5. To produce a full Strategic
5. Produce a comprehensive
5. Produce a comprehensive
the long term management
Strategic Plan for long-term
Plan for long-term application
strategic plan for long-term
strategic plan for long-term
of the lake based on a better
application, some specific
to be based upon the results
application to be based upon
application to be based upon
understanding of the
studies need to be
of specific studies which need
the results of a series of
the results of a series of
ecosystem functioning, the
undertaken. These special
to be undertaken. These
special studies aimed at
special studies aimed at
impact of pollution on the
studies will also add to the
special studies will also add to
improving the understanding
improving the understanding
system, and improved
understanding of the lake as a
the understanding of the lake
of the lake as a whole.
of the lake as a whole.
knowledge of its biodiversity;
whole and, in some cases,
as a whole and, in some
Information derived from
6. Implement sustainable
6. Implement sustainable
provide the baseline and
cases, provide the baseline
these studies will be
activities within the Lake
pollution monitoring
framework for long-term
and framework for long-term
fundamental in the
Tanganyika Strategic Plan and
programme and conservation
research and monitoring
research and monitoring
development of long-term
incorporated environmental
area management plans.
programmes
programmes.
management strategies and
management proposals.
6. Implementation and
6. To implement sustainable
will in some cases, provide
sustainability of the Lake
activities within the Lake
the baseline and framework for
Tanganyika Strategic Plan and
Tanganyika Strategic Plan and
long-term research and
incorporated environmental
incorporated environmental
monitoring programmes.
management proposals.
management proposals.
6. Implement sustainable
activities within the Lake
Tanganyika Strategic Plan and
incorporated environmental
management proposals.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32) - Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia - Mid-term evaluation mission November 1998
p. 13
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
1. Table 3 (3 pages) summarises the structuring of the project in objectives, outputs and
activities of the Prodoc (1994). The impressing number of outputs (18) and activities (81) is
striking and so is the formulation which differs quite a lot from the normal standards. As
examples of the insufficient formulation, the evaluation mission has marked in grey the less
operational formulations (objective 5, activities 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.4.2 ...).
2. Table 4 (3 pages) repeats the logical framework of the project based on the NRI bid (1995). It
is seen that the formulation of objectives has changed only little. On the other hand, the project is
structured in three phases, which is not in accordance with the Prodoc, and the outputs and
activities have been completely modified compared to the Prodoc.
3. Table 5 (3 pages) repeats the logical framework of the project as it was established during the
Inception Workshop in Dar es Salaam (March 1996) and updated in May 1996. It is seen that
the formulation of objectives is still the same and that the project is structured in three phases,
which the evaluation mission has not noticed during its meetings with the operators. The outputs
and activities have been modified again compared to the NRI bid (1995).
4. Table 6 (1 page) shows that the formulation of the immediate objectives of the project are
unchanged since the Prodoc. The mission has only quoted the English versions because the
translation into French of such important documents is simply disastrous. In the Project
Newsletter, for example, the objective No. 2 is translated as follows: ".... formuler un cadre légal
régional pour renforcer [sic] la gestion paritaire de l'environnement du lac."
5. Findings. The evaluation mission has the following findings concerning the formulation of
objectives:
Formulation of immediate objectives
Findings of the evaluation mission
1) Establish a regional long term
The formulation is redundant considering the objectives No.
management programme for pollution 2, 4 and 5. Actually the regional programme for long term
control, conservation and protection
management is sustained by the regional cooperation frame-
of biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika.
work (objective 2) and manifested in the SAP (objective 5).
Furthermore, the objectives No. 2 and 5 include the
objective No. 4.
2) Formulate a regional legal
It is not only a question of making (activity) a regional legal
framework for cooperative
framework for a joint management of the lake and its
management of the Lake
environment (output) but primarily to make it adopted and
environment.
implemented (objective).
3) Establish a programme for
environmental education and training
for Lake Tanganyika and its basin.
4) Establish tested mechanisms for
What does "tested" mean in this context? Should the
regional coordination in conservation mechanisms have been tested elsewhere or should they be
management of the Lake Tanganyika tested during the project period? In this case a project period
basin.
of 5 years in not enough.
5) Produce a comprehensive strategic The poor formulation of the exact objective "long term
plan for long term application, to be
management of the lake within the framework of a
based upon the results of a series of
progressive strategic action plan" mixes up the output (the
special studies aimed at improving the SAP itself) and the activities leading to its achievement (the
understanding of the Lake as a whole. production of the SAP based on the special studies).
Mid-term evaluation mission
66
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
6) Implement sustainable activities
This objective has a lack of clarity. The evaluation mission
within the Lake Tanganyika Strategic has added the missing part of the sentence in square brackets
Plan and (apply?) incorporated
in order to facilitate the interpretation.
environmental management
proposals.
It is not an objective but a group of activities.
Furthermore, they are post-project activities (application of
SAP).
1. The evaluation mission has noticed that, in addition to the insufficient formulation of the
objectives (which have remained practically unchanged since the writing of the Prodoc) the
structuring of the project in outputs and activities and their time scheduling (which has been
changes quite a lot since the writing of the Prodoc) is problematic.
2. The evaluation mission has not been able to structure the project activities in a way that
corresponds to what the operators have presented in the field. The prevailing impression is that
the project represents a collection of activities of which the field teams ignore the overall purpose
and structuring. Furthermore, it appears from the interventions of national institutional operators
during the TDA workshop in Lusaka (where the evaluation mission has attended as observers)
that the governmental authorities are still not able to see precisely how the haul of collected data
is finally going to be organised in order to conclude in a regional framework for a joint
management of the Lake.
3. It should be noticed that during the Workshop in Lusaka at the end of November 1998, the
participating countries have asked for a clarification of the project strategies and the scheduling of
activities and after having pointed out certain discrepancies they have asked for a revision of the
schedule. This justifies a new revision of the objectives, outputs and activities. It seems essential
that such a revision should be based on the conclusions of the evaluation mission.
4. The changes in the project organisation and in the schedule of activities reflects the inadequate
guiding of the design and implementation of the project since the very origin. As mentioned
above, the project is part of the GEF concentration area "International waters" but focus has been
put on the problem of protecting the biodiversity against the threats (some of which have still
not been proved), overruling the other problems. This original lack of clarity concerning the target
explains the indecision of the project strategies and partly also the observed delays.
Priority recommendation: Reformulate and stabilise the logical framework
The evaluation mission proposes that the logical framework of the project is reviewed with focus
on the central problem that there is currently no framework for the management of the Lake
Tanganyika as an international basin. Such a refocusing also allows the project to be put back in
the GEF concentration area according to which the financing has been granted (see
recommendation No. 1). In this perspective, the protection of the biodiversity appears to be a
beneficial effect of a sound and rational management of the Lake and not the central problem of
the management of the Lake.
Mid-term evaluation mission
67
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3.1.4.2 Objectively verifiable indicators
1. The evaluation mission points out that the Prodoc does not present the logical framework of
the project, nor does it mention objectively verifiable indicators (OVI) allowing to evaluate the
course of the project and the achievement of its objectives.
2. The evaluation mission has appreciated that in its bid the NRI Consortium has tried to
organise the objectives, outputs and activities according to a logical framework in order to make
up for the insufficient description in the Prodoc. The above table 4 indicates the OVIs of the NRI
bid. As mentioned before, the logical framework of the phase II has been completely revised
during the Inception Workshop in 1996. Table 5 indicates the OVIs retained in this new design.
3. Finally, the evaluation mission has noticed that the national operators of the project are not
concerned about the logical framework in which they are situated. It should be emphasised that
for most of the operators in the field it is not necessary to have an overall view of the project as
their activities are limited to supplying the NRI Consortium with data of which they are
completely or partly unaware of the further use (see § 3.3).
4. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends: (1) that the logical framework
(including the OVIs) is established according to the restructuring of the objectives and outputs
proposed in § 3.1.8 and (2) that the national operators in the field are clearly informed of the use
of their work and of the way of evaluating this work.
3.1.5 Organisation chart and project organs: mandates, terms of reference
1. The evaluation mission is in possession of two organisation charts of the project:
- the organisation chart of the Prodoc (1994);
- the organisation chart presented in 1998 in the Project Newsletter14
Besides, there is a figure 4 in the Inception Report showing "the appropriate structure for the
global management of the project and the key relations". As the evaluation mission has received
this document in electronic format (without figures), the figure cannot be reproduced here.
1. The evaluation mission has the following comments to the organisation charts in their
possession (figures 4 and 5):
- The organisation chart of the Prodoc was not feasible. It placed the Project Coordination Unit
(PCU) above the countries. The International Technical Committee was inserted between the
Regional Steering Committee and the PCU. There had been established a Training and
Education Committee which seemed to be out of the control of the beneficiary countries,
thanks to its position. Finally, the organisation chart entailed a GEF supervising mission that
should deal with the project operations at all levels while the representations of GEF as well
as UNDP or the governments are allowed to act only at the level of the Regional Steering
Committee.
14 "Lakeside", vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1998, page 4.
Mid-term evaluation mission
68
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Figure 4: GEF Lake Tanganyika Project management organisation (Prodoc, p. 20, 1994)
Mid-term evaluation mission
69
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Figure 5: organisation chart of the project
(Source: Lakeside, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1998, page 4)
Mid-term evaluation mission
70
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- The organisation chart from 1998, elaborated by the PCU, try to remedy the insufficiencies
of the organisation chart of the Prodoc but it is still not feasible because it presents a linear
structure mixing up the organs and the results of the project. This structure applies from the
Regional Steering Committee and right to the organ responsible for the Lake management
(which does not exist since the establishment of such an organ is precisely the envisaged
result of the project). Due to their position in the chart, the NRI Consortium and the PCU
depend only on the GEF/UNDP/UNOPS and not on the Regional Steering Committee, etc.
1. The evaluation mission finds that the question of organisation chart and names of the project
organs is not purely formal since a clear and realistic organisation chart is the condition of a good
comprehension by the national and international operators of the positions of the respective
organs in the project. The evaluation mission estimates that the present organisation chart does
not correspond correctly to the desirable organisation of a project of this importance.
Furthermore, the evaluation mission finds that the present titles of organs and positions give rise
to confusion. Consequently, the evaluation mission recommends that an organisation chart is
established taking into consideration the other recommendations concerning names and mandates
of the project organs.
Priority recommendation: Revise the organisation chart of the project, write down the
mandates and/or the terms of reference for each organ as well as detailed descriptions of
each position.
The evaluation mission proposes a revision of the organisation chart of the project based on the
following (which is to be left unchanged until the completion of the project, without creating new
structures, nor new positions):
1. Respect for the hierarchical position and for the exact functions of the different positions and
organs;
2. Compliance of the titles of organs and positions with their real mandates;
- For example, the present "National Coordinators" are in fact the "National directors" of the
project. The real national coordinators are the present "Assistants to the National
Coordinators" who do not depend on their authority since they are part of the project team
and are paid by the NRI Consortium.
- Likewise, there can be only one managing authority of the project, namely the Project Steering
Committee, consisting of the project parties (the four beneficiary countries, UNDP/GEF and
UNOPS as executing agency). The present "National Steering Committees" have no authority
to run the project. They are merely "National follow-up committees" whose main role is to
facilitate the execution of the project in their respective countries, to ensure the compliance of
the project orientation with the national policies and institutional framework and, finally, to
look after the implementation of the results.
3. Respect for the national institutional framework: it should be avoided that the project team
entrusts the implementation of certain activities to other national structures than those having
the official authority.
Mid-term evaluation mission
71
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
A revised organisation chart for the project is given hereafter.
Mid-term evaluation mission
72
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
1. The evaluation mission proposes that the organisation of the project is based on four levels
of responsibility (see figure 6):
2. Institutional/decision-making level: this is the level of the Regional Steering Committee and
the National Follow-up Committees (replacing the National "Steering" Committees);
3. Consultative level: this is the level of TAC, of the local UNDP offices and of the National
Follow-up Committees (NFCs);
4. Operational level: this is the level of the PCU and the Assistant to the National Coordinators
(or; better; National Technical Advisors);
5. Execution level: this is the level of the project operators, including the members of the NRI
Consortium acting as executants, the national services involved in the project, the members of
NFCs acting as responsible for the administrative services operating in the project.
6. Due to the fact that the four beneficiary countries have equal positions in the project (and
taken into consideration that the ideal organisation chart showing the four countries should be
three-dimensional) the following proposed structure is presented only for one country and not
for all four.
Figure 6: Organisation
chart recommended by
Consultative level
the evaluation mission
Institutional/decision
PSC: Project
making level
Steering
NPD
Committee
Operational level
NTA
NRI
Consultants
Execution level
Implementation of activities at national level
Mid-term evaluation mission
73
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
7. The project organs are described in the Prodoc (§ B.7, Coordination arrangements, pages 21-
22). They were specified during the meeting in Dar es Salaam on March 26, 1996, which was
attended by the National Coordinators of the project, the representative of UNDP/GEF and the
Project Coordinator. They have been subjected to discussions at other statutory project
meetings.
8. The evaluation mission points out that the definitions of organs mentioned in the Prodoc are
not feasible just like the organisation chart stipulated by the Prodoc; this explains the subsequent
hesitation concerning their precise definition. For example, the implementing agency (i.e. the NRI
Consortium) is a member of the Regional Steering Committee (called the "Lake Tanganyika
Conservation Steering Committee") which is not part of its tasks. The PCU, as planned, is
oversized and encroaches upon the mandate of the executing agency (a unit in charge of
controlling the teams is planned....). The title of National Coordinator instead of the traditional
National Director of the UNDP projects creates a confusion (which has lasted until today)
between the roles of governmental representative and the operational roles concerning the
coordination of project activities. Moreover, the Project Coordinator chairs the Technical
Committee which is mandated to evaluate its technical work (see annex VII, B of the Prodoc).
Etc.
9. Without dwelling on the intermediate stages between the Prodoc and today, the evaluation
mission considers that the designations of the organs should respect the usual terminology of
UNDP projects. The mandates of the useful organs should be clearly specified. There should be a
clear distinction between the roles concerning orientation-monitoring-evaluation (governments,
UNDP/GEF, UNOPS), the consultative roles (TAC), the operational roles (PCU, National
Technical Advisors) and finally the roles concerning execution (national consultants and
operators). The correspondence between the present names and the proposed names are as
follows (the names of organs, which are not mentioned, are unchanged):
Present names
Recommended names
Regional Steering Committee
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
National Project Coordinator
National Project Director (NPD)
National Steering Committee
National Follow-up Committee (NFC)
National Project Coordinator's Assistant
National Technical Advisor (NTA)
1. Recommendation. For each of the project organs or positions the evaluation mission
recommends that the terms of reference are written down, taking into account the other relevant
recommendations.
3.1.6 Scheduling of outputs and activities
1. The evolution of the project design since its origin has been presented in § 2.3. This section is
limited to the scheduling of outputs and activities as it was assessed by the evaluation mission.
2. During the evaluation, the organisers of the TDA workshop in Lusaka presented the
scheduling of activities right to the completion of the project (see figure 7). This presentation
gave rise to criticism from the representatives of the beneficiary countries. The members of the
Mid-term evaluation mission
74
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
evaluation mission, who were only participating in the workshop as observers, did not intervene
in the discussion but they agree completely with the beneficiary countries.
Mid-term evaluation mission
75
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Figure 7: Scheduling of the activities discussed during the TDA Workshop in Lusaka
(November 1998)
Mid-term evaluation mission
76
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3. Actually, the course indicated in figure 7 presents three parallel approaches: one concerning
the special studies, one concerning the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and one concerning the
elaboration of the Regional Convention. This comes down to elaborate the Strategic Action Plan
(SAP): (1) before the results of the special studies are achieved allowing the assessment of the
problems to be solved and (2) before the ministers formally agree on the principle of a regional
cooperation. Under these circumstances, there is an important risk that the final project outputs
will be rejected in fine by the governments to whom they should be beneficial.
4. Furthermore, the programming of the SAP elaboration process before the completion of the
special studies made it impossible to take into account the results obtained from these and
consequently deprived them of any use. Through their request for a rescheduling of the project
activities in a logic order, the beneficiary countries give their full justification to the special
studies.
5. The evaluation mission firmly recommends that logic order, which was formulated orally at
the conclusion of the TDA Lusaka Workshop, is respected.
Priority recommendation: Respect the logic order of the production of results
1) Compilation of the existing data
2) Elaboration of the
(incl. the national, regional and
regional agreement
4) Strategic action
international legislative and
plan (SAP)
institutional, framework)
3) Special studies
3.1.7 The specific question of associating Rwanda in the project
1. Rwanda has a special position. The country is not a riparian of the Lake and is therefore not
directly concerned by its exploitation or conservation. However, part of the side basin of the
Lake is situated on the territory of Rwanda and, in that capacity, the Lake is affected by the
development activities and the occupation of the ground of this part of Rwanda which has (or
could have) a direct influence on the Lake.
2. The evaluation mission finds it important to draw the attention of the project parties
(beneficiary countries, UNDP/GEF and UNOPS) to this special question concerning Rwanda. At
the beginning of the project, Rwanda was not associated since the view of the authors of the
project was focused on the biodiversity of the Lake and not on the management of the Lake
within its basin. Nonetheless, Rwanda occupies a part of the side basin of the Lake. If the
present concepts and principles concerning integrated water resources management (see annex 7)
are to be respected, the necessity of associating Rwanda is a fact.
3. As Rwanda is, however, not a riparian of the Lake, it cannot have the same degree of
involvement in the management of its resources. But its position in the basin imposes the
country a certain responsibility for the conservation of the Lake. So, either the present activities
in the Rwandan part of the basin (deforestation, erosion, pollution ?) have a confirmed impact,
which would justify its immediate association, or these activities might require, one day or
another, a cooperation with Rwanda and in this second case it would be advantageous to establish
the basis for such a cooperation without hesitation by associating Rwanda with the project
Mid-term evaluation mission
77
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
immediately (in a form which still needs to be defined and which takes into account the particular
position of this country).
4. Since Rwanda sank into chaos in 1994, one year before the actual start of the project, the
question of its participation never occurred. Today, the internal situation of the country is being
normalised and it is therefore legitimate to ask the question of Rwanda's role in the project.
Priority recommendation: The evaluation mission recommends that the Rwandan
government is invited to participate, as observer, in the next meeting of the Project
Steering Committee and that the practical details in connection with its association with
the project is put on the agenda for this meeting.
3.1.8 Partial conclusion on the project design
1. Recommendation. Considering the confusion which has gradually occurred in the
formulation and the scheduling of the objectives, outputs and activities, the evaluation mission
recommends that the project concentrates on fulfilling the fundamental needs of the beneficiary
countries. In this respect, the evaluation mission proposes that the following formulation and
structuring of the objectives and outputs of the project are adopted until the project completion.
Development objective: a sustainable exploitation of Lake Tanganyika and its basin for the
benefice of the riparian populations and assuring the sustainability of the unique Lake
ecosystems.
Immediate objective: a permanent framework for integrated management of the Lake based on a
political dialogue between the five countries sharing (or affecting) the resource.
Outputs
1) Regional convention (including the fisheries agreement in preparation under LTR project)
2) Organism for political dialogue
3) Institutional management framework (unique organism or network of existing national
institutions?)
4) (Strategic) Action Plan
- Assessment of existing information
- Special Studies (technical, social, economic, participatory)
5) Capacity for monitoring and assessment of water resources issues
- Equipment
- Training
6) Capacity for awareness making and education
Mid-term evaluation mission
78
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3.2 Project implementation
3.2.1 General findings
1. Generally, the evaluation mission estimates that the project is well managed when it comes to
planning and organisation of the activities as well as when it comes to the committing of
expenses and the follow-up on their execution (??). At this level, there is consequently no
particular problems that could be subject to improvements.
3.2.2 Execution of the mandate of UNOPS as executing agency
1. UNOPS, appointed by UNDP as executing agency of the project, is one of the principal
execution agencies of UNDP projects. This office has specialised in the execution of development
projects and has a long experience in the field of regional projects in Africa. Considering the
delegation of the project implementation to the NRI Consortium, being specialist in the technical
fields of the project, the role of UNOPS concerns support to the methodology and the financial
management of the project rather than technical expertise. The role of financial execution of the
project has been perfectly handled by UNOPS.
2. However, the evaluation mission estimates that the scientific and technical monitoring of the
project by UNOPS has not been reached the same level at the financial monitoring. This explains
how the project has been able to progressively drift towards an illogical and badly proportioned
structuring of the objectives, outputs and activities. Not until the Lusaka Workshop (at the end
of November 1998) did the beneficiary countries ask for a review of the scheduling of outputs
and activities of the project.
3. Recommendation. For the rest of the project the evaluation mission recommends that
UNOPS reinforces its role of technical control according to the decisions that would have been
taken at the next Regional Steering Committee meeting as a result of the present evaluation
report.
3.2.3 Budget situation
1. The budget is divided into three important items: (1) the expenses undertaken directly by
UNOPS (preliminary phase and execution costs of the principal phase); (2) the contract with the
NRI Consortium; (3) the budget allocated to FAO within the framework of the interagency
agreement concerning execution of the hydrodynamic study (subcontracted to the University of
Kuopio).
2. The evaluation mission has no findings, nor recommendations concerning the execution of the
contract binding UNOPS to the NRI Consortium.
3. The budget of the project amounts to 10,000,000 USD. As for the situation of the budget at
the time of the evaluation, the elements presented to the mission by UNOPS are as follows:
Expenses, 1993 (preliminary phase)
10,120 USD
Expenses, 1994 (preliminary phase, continued)
31,710 USD
Expenses, 1995 (beginning of implementation phase)
801,275 USD
Expenses, 1996
1,176,732 USD
Expenses, 1997
2,282,611 USD
Mid-term evaluation mission
79
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Expenses, 1998 (situation at the end of October)
849,893 USD
Total:
5,152,341 USD
1. Finding. These expenses are not broken down between the above mentioned three large
items. The financial situation of the FAO subcontract (hydrodynamic study) has not been
formulated. The evaluation mission does not know whether the above mentioned amounts include
the UNOPS execution costs. It has therefore not been possible for the mission to estimate the
available remainder of the contract between UNOPS and the NRI Consortium (that covers the
substantial project activities until the completion of the project).
2. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that UNOPS presents a summary
table at the next COP meeting, indicating the present situation as well as the expenses that have
been undertaken but still not settled, among these the UNOPS (and FAO?) costs.
3.2.4 The intervention of FAO as collaborating agency
1. FAO has intervened as Collaborating agency in the carrying out of one particular component
of the project, completing the special studies and applying to the development of a model of
circulation and transportation of sediments. The model has been established by a Finnish team
from the University of Kuopio. The objectives of this hydrodynamic project, as presented in the
final report that was published in 1997, is to study15 a number of phenomena:
2) to study the wind driven circulation
3) to study the major upwelling phenomena in the southern Lake basin and their role in
vertical transport of hypolimnetic waters
4) to study the secondary upwelling and spreading of these waters along eastern and western
shore of the Lake
5) to study the periodic oscillations of the Lake
6) to study the horizontal dispersion and transport of suspended matter in the Lake,
especially near the main river inlets
7. The carrying out of this component by FAO has taken place within the framework of an
interagency agreement between UNDP and FAO. It seems that neither the teams from the NRI
Consortium, nor the national operators of the project have been involved in the work.
8. The model, called "TANGPATH" (Lake Tanganyika Particle Tracking Model), is distributed
free of charge by the University of Kuopio that only invoices the handling and dispatching
costs16. The evaluation mission has not been able to examine the functioning of the model as it
has not been installed on the project computers. It seems that the model is still in the process of
15 The evaluation mission points out that this formulation of the objectives does not reflect the operational
usefulness of the work in relation to the general objective of sustainable management of the lake.
16 Prof. Hannu Mölsä, Department of Applied Zoology and Veterinary Medicine, University of Kuopio, P.O. Box
1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio (Finland). Phone: +358 17 163148. Costs: USD 30,00.
Mid-term evaluation mission
80
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
being tested in Great Britain. The national staff has not received any training in the use of the
model and the national scientists are not aware of its existence.
3.2.5 Support given by the local UNDP offices
1. According to the information obtained by the evaluation mission from the three local UNDP
offices visited (Bujumbura, Dar es Salaam, Lusaka), it seems that the involvement of these offices
in the project is not very strong. The one that is most affected is the office in Dar es Salaam,
where the project has its headquarters. The reason for this general lack of involvement is that the
direct relations are established between UNOPS and the NRI Consortium and that the local
offices have not been asked to play the role of communication channel.
2. However, the evaluation mission has noticed that in spite of the impression of having been
somewhat kept out of the project, the local UNDP offices do follow its progress carefully. They
have made some very useful observations for the evaluation mission concerning the integration of
the project in the national policies and within their national cooperation frameworks. The UNDP
offices are also best situated and the most experienced to be able to advice the project concerning
institutional arrangements with the governments and the most appropriate concepts for the
organisation of projects17. Finally, the necessity of paying a particular attention to the human
development aspects and to the participatory approaches in the course of the project has been
emphasised by the UNDP officials.
3. Besides, the evaluation mission has experienced that the local UNDP offices react positively
and with efficiency when they are called upon to give their logistical support to consultants in
transit, for example by solving transport problems under conditions that are sometimes difficult
as it is the case in Burundi.
4. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that the relations between the
project and the UNDP local offices are reinforced and that the Programme Officers are more
closely involved in the implementation of activities and in the harmonisation of these with the
activities of other development projects in their respective countries.
3.2.6 Institutional arrangements with the beneficiary countries
1. Finding. The mission has appreciated the choice of representatives within the project from
each of the four governments. Actually, the four governments are represented by the managing
directors of key institutions in the field of environmental protection. Consequently, there is at
the same time a political representation and a technical follow-up capacity of the project at a
very high level. However, the evaluation mission finds that also the highly executives from the
water sector should be more closely involved in the project and help the PCU by throwing light
on the national political orientations in this field.
2. Finding. The evaluation mission does not agree on the title of "National Coordinators" which
has been given to the representatives of the governments within the project. Primarily, the
appropriate title in UNDP projects it "National Project Director". Secondly, these
17 If the local UNDP offices had been consulted on the organisation chart of the project and on the mandates of the
organs, the institutional arrangements would have been much more clear right from the start of the project.
Mid-term evaluation mission
81
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
"Coordinators" are not mandated to coordinate anything as the NRI Consortium is officially
responsible for the implementation of the project. This title could therefore give rise to
demarcation disputes18. In addition, the coordinators cannot be both judge and judged: i.e.
coordinate the activities and then evaluate them as members of the Project Steering Committee. It
is therefore necessary to review this title (see § 3.1.5 concerning the organisation chart and the
mandates of the project organs).
3. Finding. The evaluation mission has noticed that the choice of national institutional
operators is often guided by short term practical considerations and are consequently not always
respecting the official mandates of the national institutions concerning follow-up and evaluation
of the particular problems. The choice of operators is not taking into sufficient consideration the
concern for a sustainable follow-up and evaluation within the framework of the future
management of the Lake. Yet, in order to be sustainable, the future follow-up and evaluation
activities should be placed under the responsibility of the institutions that are (or will be)
formally in charge of them in their respective countries.
Priority recommendation: Identify which institutions are (or will be) mandated to fulfil
each of the follow-up/evaluation functions that are planned for the future.
In case some of the institutions that are not presently involved in the project would be responsible
for some of these functions, a plan should be prepared and implemented in order to involve them
as soon as possible.
In case some of the present mandates should be modified (for technical, economic or practical
reasons or for specific reasons in relation to the needs of the management of the Lake), there
should be taken initiatives to make the necessary institutional (and statutory) changes.
3.2.7 National ownership and institutional anchoring
1. Finding. The present arrangements concerning the implementation are not likely to facilitate
the appropriation of methods and results of the project by the political decision-makers and the
national experts. Actually, each team of national specialists inside each country has only a limited
and fragmented vision of the project strategies. The raw data are sent to the NRI Consortium in
Great Britain. These data are treated by consultants outside the region with a very limited
participation of national specialists. Under these circumstances, the evaluation mission estimates
that it will be difficult for the decision-makers and for the national scientists, at the completion of
the project, to take over the management instruments and tools whose main features they are still
not acquainted with.
Priority recommendation: Involve the nationals further in the definition of the work
programmes
18 Fortunately, this is not the case because the "National Coordinators", who have experience from other UNDP
projects, have understood their role as National Project Directors correctly.
Mid-term evaluation mission
82
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
The evaluation mission emphasises that the NRI Consortium has only got a temporary role as a
contractor of UNOPS, while the countries have a long term responsibility for the application of
the project results. They are therefore in the best position to specify their own needs and should be
associated as soon as possible in the use of the results. The working programmes of the project
should be specified in close collaboration with the decision-makers and the national specialists
according to the following elements:
1) The expected situation by the end of the project (the needs of the countries for a joint
management of the Lake during the post-project phase);
2) The national policies and institutional frameworks (see priority recommendation No. 7);
3) The capacities of the local experts; this will make it easier to target the needs for professional
training (see priority recommendation No. 8).
1. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the recent recruitment of expatriate facilitators for
coordination of the special studies does not come up to the objectives of the project unless it is
supplemented by the positioning of regional counterparts. The evaluation mission points out that
the Project Steering Committee had recommended the recruitment of native facilitators from the
beneficiary countries. Yet, these countries have not been involved in the selection of the
facilitators appointed by the NRI Consortium and have been presented to a "fait accompli".
2. Entrusting the coordination of certain activities to international experts can only result in the
loss of an important part of the capitalised knowledge, since these experts are not called upon to
exercise in the region after the completion of the project. The national experts must not be
reduced to the role of executing fragmented tasks because they are the ones to ensure the
continuity of the project after its completion. That is why it is important to start promoting
immediately the progressive assumption of the regional coordination tasks by the national
experts.
Priority recommendation: Make the best qualified national experts on the regional level,
work in close relation with the recently recruited facilitators.
In order to do so, the Project Coordination Unit should make an effort:
1) To identify the best qualified and recognised national experts on the regional level in the
different fields of the project;
2) To form two-person teams (expatriate facilitator + local specialist) in the four main fields of
the special studies (pollution, sedimentation, fisheries, socio-economy);
3) To make the local specialists intervene in other countries than their own in the same capacity
as the expatriate facilitators and in close collaboration with these.
3.2.8 Use of the GEF inputs
1. Finding. Without implicating the accounting management of the project, the evaluation
mission has the impression that certain expenses are not proportional to their effects on the
Mid-term evaluation mission
83
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
project results. The best illustration of this state of affairs is the Lusaka Workshop where not
less than 5 representatives for each country and 7 expatriate experts from the NRI Consortium19
participated. The evaluation mission does not implicate the holding of this type of periodical
meetings which allow the national parties and the PCU to exchange views on the project. But the
only concrete result of the Lusaka Workshop has been the acknowledgement that this meeting
was premature since the assessed data on the threats against the Lake were not available and the
scheduling of the activities leading to the Convention and to the SAP were consequently to be
reviewed.
2.
Finding. Another finding, which has been developed elsewhere, is that the project will not
be able to produce the expected results within the deadlines that were planned initially and that a
extension will be necessary. However, no extension can be made without respecting the budget.
Consequently, there must be found economic means to reorganise the budgets towards the vital
activities.
3.
Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that the mission expenses (for
expatriate or national experts) for project meetings should be limited to the minimum compatible
with the achievement of expected outputs.
4.
Finding. The evaluation mission has also noticed that the contract between UNOPS and
the NRI Consortium has made provisions for the invoicing of tasks carried out entirely in Great
Britain (for example, the baseline study on legislation, the database concerning the Lake, the
geographical information system, etc.). The evaluation mission does not agree on this principle
which does not ensure sufficiently the transfer of knowledge, nor the possibilities of follow-up
and control by UNOPS or by the beneficiary countries.
5.
Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that any charging of time to
expatriate experts on the project budget should be limited to tasks carried out in the region,
tolerating, however, (according to the agreement to be made between UNOPS and the NRI
Consortium) the time spent on preparing and writing reports, if necessary.
3.2.9 External factors influencing (or having influenced) the project
1. As mentioned in the introduction there are some external factors which have seriously
influenced the fulfilment of the project activities. Three main problems have been identified by
the evaluation mission: (1) the situation in Burundi; (2) the situation in D.R.Congo; (3) the
situation in Rwanda which has made it impossible to envisage in practice the involvement of this
country in the project (see § 3.1.7).
2. The events in Burundi have had three effects:
a) The impossibility of carrying out the activities normally during the first years of the project
because of the insecure situation of the country. The country is still under the impact of a
curfew but the evaluation mission has noticed that the present situation allows the project
activities (located next to the Lake) to be carried out normally since the summer 1998.
Furthermore, the Scientific liaison officer of the project is presently based in Bujumbura. In
19 Without counting the evaluators who considers their presence as observers in this workshop as one of the most
productive moments of the mission....
Mid-term evaluation mission
84
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
this connection, the evaluation mission points out that if the security conditions in
Bujumbura allows the Scientific liaison officer to carry out his activities in a normal way,
this should also be possible for the PCU.
b) The transfer of the project head office to Dar es Salaam has had the effect of removing the
Project Coordination Unit (PCU) more than 1000 km away from the Lake which has not
made the communication between the PCU and the field teams easier.
c) An embargo has hit the country since 1996, while the internal situation is improving20.
Priority recommendation: In accordance with the decision of the Project Steering
Committee concerning the transfer of the project head office to Dar es Salaam, the
evaluation mission recommends that the project head office is moved back to Bujumbura
as soon as the two conditions, which make it possible, have been fulfilled: lifting of the
curfew and of the embargo.
1. The civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly the Zaire), has been
concentrated primarily to the area of the Great Lakes, particularly the lakeside zone of the Lake
Tanganyika (Uvira, Kalemie) and has consequently prevented the normal carrying out of the
project activities on the Congolese shore of the Lake. In spite of the pillage of their installations
and of the risks they were running, the scientists of the CHR of Uvira have performed heroic
deeds to bring certain activities to a successful conclusion. At the time of the evaluation mission,
the situation is still insecure but there are hopes of a normalisation in the near future. The high
level of involvement of the Congolese scientists makes believe that by that time the activities will
be able to start at a rapid rate.
Priority recommendation: The Project Coordination Unit should already now start
preparing the scenarios concerning the restarting of the activities in D.R.Congo. Since
the human resources are already in place, the PCU should pay a special attention to the
procedures of a rapid transportation and installation of the necessary logistics in Uvira.
3.3 Substantive results of the project
3.3.1 General findings and recommendations
(144a) Finding. The evaluation mission estimates that the results achieved till now, in varying
degrees but in practically all fields (legal and institutional framework, planning strategies,
substance of special studies, economic evaluation, participatory approaches), are not able to
constitute a sufficiently solid basis for a sustainable management of the Lake and its basin.
Considering the limited remaining project period, the future activities should get to the heart of
20 On January 22, 1999, the presidents of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have decided in Arusha to establish, before
the end of July, an Economic Community of East Africa to which also Burundi and Rwanda could adhere.
Furthermore, the summit of Arusha has decided the following day to lift the economic embargo, which was imposed
on July 31, 1996 on the regime of Burundi after the coup that had restored the power of M. Buyoya.
Mid-term evaluation mission
85
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
the matter. The special studies should be reduced and the legal and institutional aspects of the
management of the Lake should be reinforced.
Priority recommendation: Direct the production of project results towards the needs for a
joint management of the Lake
Considering the hesitations in the approach and the delays that have been observed to date, the
evaluation mission estimates that the project activities for the remaining project period should be
concentrated on the needs for the Lake management by the beneficiary countries. All academic
types of activities should be concluded, no matter what may be their scientific interest, and it is
important to avoid all activities that have no immediate utility, either in terms of intermediary
results or in terms of final results exploitable for the joint management of the Lake.
3.3.2 Baseline studies
1. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the project has produced only little documentation
concerning the existing knowledge. The accomplished baseline studies, for example, are in fact
limited to inventories of data sources and to the references of previous studies. The evaluation
mission has particularly noticed the weakness of the baseline study concerning the legal and
regulation framework, which is limited to a study from a distance consisting of the compiling the
texts (of which most are outdated) that are available in the documentation centres of Great
Britain.
2. Recommendation. Establish an updated database of the legal and regulation texts concerning
water and environment in the countries of the Lake basin, in the region and at international level.
3. Finding. In the economic sector, the evaluation mission has noticed the lack of evaluation
(even qualitative) of the Lake region: populations, income from the agricultural productions,
fishing, industrial activities, services, etc. Yet, these data are necessary in order to direct certain
functions of the resources management of the Lake, particularly the arbitration between the
different uses of water according to their socio-economic advantages and the risks of degradation
which they constitute.
4. Recommendation. It is necessary to make a study of the economic context of the Lake region
and studies of the "water" and "fisheries" sectors.
5. Finding. Three years after the starting up of the project, the general hypotheses of the
impact, which constitute the basis of the project, have still not been documented or evaluated
based on the compilation of existing data. The special studies are still not sufficiently advanced to
give indisputable results that could compensate this gap and they need substantial starting data to
be optimised. The data should be compiled and the level of existing knowledge concerning the
initial hypotheses of the impact must be documented (and constitute a starting data for the future
working plan of the special studies). The improvement of the evaluation of the problems should
be a continuous process usable for the prioritisation of the resulting management functions.
Priority recommendation: Complete the data bases regrouping the existing data and
install them in the appropriate institutions
Mid-term evaluation mission
86
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
The data should be compiled and the state of present knowledge concerning the introductory
hypotheses should be established (in order to serve as basis for subsequent studies). The
improved understanding of the problems should become a continuous process allowing to refine
the prioritisation of the management functions.
Priority recommendation: Make the synthesis of all the pertinent scientific knowledge
acquired till now, which is necessary for the definition of the special studies and for the
elaboration of management tools for the Lake
The evaluation mission considers that to date there is no summary presenting the basic data after
control of their quality and in a way that allows the decision-makers of the riparian countries to
exploit them. Consequently, the evaluation mission estimates that this work still needs to be done
and that it should be prioritised before producing the other project results: special studies,
convention, strategic action plans (see also priority recommendation No. 14).
3.3.3 Special studies
1. The evaluation of the special studies comprises a number of findings and recommendations
related to the overall function, approach and achievements of the studies. These are dealt with in
the following section and they should be seen as common to all the studies. More specific
findings and recommendations for the individual studies are found in the subsequent sections.
3.3.3.1 General findings and recommendations
1. Finding. The project concept is based on three general hypotheses regarding environmental
impacts threatening the Lake, namely:
a) changes in land use practises cause increased discharge of sediments to the Lake having
impact on the biodiversity;
b) pollution deteriorates the water quality and impacts the biodiversity;
c) unsuitable fishing practices cause overfishing and impacts the biodiversity.
1. Considering the general development of human activities in the region as well as the
importance of the Lake ecology and its unique biodiversity, the mission finds that these three
hypotheses were all relevant for consideration as threats to the Lake ecosystem. They constitute
a reasonable justification of the project idea considering the importance of the Lake and its
biologic richness. However, at the time of the project formulation, none of the hypotheses were
adequately documented in quantitative terms, implying that it was not known whether the Lake,
under the existing conditions, was significantly impacted by human activities.
2. It is moreover found that the project has provided limited progress regarding such a
documentation since the point of departure. The fishing practices are certainly the most advanced
(potentially) as they are able to use the substantive contributions of the LTR project. On the
other hand, the threats constituted by the pollution and the sedimentation are still not always
correctly documented.
Mid-term evaluation mission
87
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3. It is noticed that 3 years after the project start the general impact hypotheses, on which the
project is based, have not been evaluated through an exhaustive compilation of existing data, nor
thanks to the special studies as these have hardly been initiated. Furthermore, it has not been
possible to plan the data collection according to such a knowledge21.
4. Set up more or less management functions in the post-project phase implies the use of
financial and human resources, which are by definition limited in developing countries. This is the
case for the Lake Tanganyika basin countries. Moreover, the needs for development in these
countries are at a level where a maximum of discernment and technical insight is indispensable to
avoid unnecessary constraints to the social and economic development, devoting important
means to not critical problems. The use of the "Precaution" principle should be seen in this
context and not as a necessity to protect oneself against any possible and conceivable risk. The
project should therefore consider the verification (or rejection) of the basic impact hypotheses as
a major issue as the problem identification is the one that defines future management functions
and thereby the content of the SAP.
Priority recommendation: Treat as a major problem of the project the question of
verifying (or invalidating) the basic hypothesis concerning the environmental impacts
that are threatening the Lake
Identification of the real problems and of their seriousness is the only way of defining the future
management functions. These functions require financial and human resources. However, the
resources of the countries in question are very limited in these fields. It is therefore necessary to
act with much discretion in order to avoid weighing unnecessarily on the resources intended for
the economic and social development, devoting important means to the resolution of minor
problems. The application of the "precautionary principle" should be seen in this context.
1. Finding. Practically all the special studies have started very late and some parts have not
started yet. The point of departure for the technical studies was a methodology workshop in
August 1997 and most field-work has begun in 1998. Considering the lack of precision of the
existing literature, the evaluation mission finds that the special studies play a major role in the
verification (or rejection) of the basic impact hypotheses as well as in the development of future
monitoring strategies. The special studies, as planned at the origin of the project, therefore
constitute a prerequisite for the development of the SAP.
Priority recommendation: Maximum effort should be laid in a timely implementation of
all the special studies and the overall planning of activities shall assure that they can
provide the necessary background for the Strategic Action Plan.
21 It shall be noted that the amount of available data varies very much for the different studies. Thus, for pollution
and sediment discharges very few data exist. On the other hand, it seems that substantial amounts of data relevant for
assessment of fishing practises and species distribution in lake exist (from the LTR project and numerous taxonomic
studies)
Mid-term evaluation mission
88
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
1. The evaluation mission has noticed a certain lack of precision in the overall view of each
theme of the special studies and a general lack of knowledge of this overall view has been noticed
among the national operators. As mentioned above, this is due primarily to:
- the position of the special studies in the general scheduling of project activities and to their
missing connection with the other outputs of the project. This problem should be solved as a
result of the modifications that were required during the TDA workshop of Lusaka;
- the absence of synthesis of initial data supporting the special studies. This problem should be
solved if the recommendations on this subject are applied;
- the low level of involvement of national specialists in the definition and interpretation of the
special studies. This problem should also be solved if the relevant priority recommendations
are applied.
Besides these reasons, the evaluation mission points out that the present documents defining the
special studies are presented as "standing instructions" to be followed rather than as arguments
about the "why" and the "how" of these studies.
Priority recommendation: Prepare a document (as a supplement to the present "standing
instructions" concerning the sampling and the laboratory work) on the overall technical
approach and on the way the collected data may contribute to a better knowledge of the
problems and to the development of the future management tools.
The activities should be prepared in collaboration with the national counterparts in order to
guarantee that:
1. the approach followed by the project is clearly understood by the key persons of the levels in
question:
Fieldwork Data compilation Assessment/Evaluation Management
2. the local knowledge is not neglected but is used in an optimum way;
3. the scientific approach itself is transferred to the involved national institutions.
1. Finding. One of the essential objectives of the project is to create a regional collaboration
framework between the riparian countries of the Lake Tanganyika. It is desirable that the terms
for such a collaboration are tried out as soon as possible during the project phase and taking
advantage of the resources granted by UNDP/GEF. However, the evaluation mission has noticed
an unsatisfactory communication between the national teams working on the same study themes
in the four countries. The following priority recommendation completes the priority
recommendations concerning the possible intervention of national experts in other countries than
their own, aiming at a better appropriation of the project methods and results by the nationals.
At the same time, it also supports a reinforcement of the regional institutional framework.
Mid-term evaluation mission
89
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Priority recommendation: Prepare and implement before the end of the project
sustainable mechanisms/procedures for professional exchanges between the national
experts in order to meet from now on the future needs for exchange of information, of
experiences and of continuous harmonisation.
(158a) As a supplement to these general aspects of the special studies, the evaluation mission has
paid attention to each component of the special studies supposing that the scheduling of the
results and consequently of the project activities was put back in a logical order.
For each theme of the special studies the evaluation mission has examined the following
questions:
1. their rationale;
2. the pursued goals, the methodology, etc.;
3. the present state of work;
4. the special points (methodological, scientific or technical) resulting in findings and/or
recommendations.
3.3.3.2 Sedimentation special studies (SSS)
1. Hydrology: the sediment special studies (SSS) include the hydrological studies that do not
appear as such in the project. In this connection, the evaluation mission estimates that a
particular importance should be paid to the establishment of the hydrologic assessment of the
Lake. Actually, this assessment is one of the fundamental basic data of the pollution and
sedimentation studies which has not been granted the desired importance due to its integration in
the other components.
2. Recommendation. Treat the hydrologic assessment of the Lake as a completely separate
question, integrating the results of the FAO/Finnida study on the sediment dynamics.
3. Rationale. The Sediment Special Study is based on the hypothesis that changes in land use
in the Lake catchment result in increased soil material run-off. The material (suspended or
dissolved solids) is then carried by the rivers and discharged into the Lake where it constitutes a
threat to the living organisms in the water column (e.g. by increased turbidity) and at the Lake
bottom when the material deposits here. The project approach includes a number of activities to
verify (or reject) this hypothesis:
- Satellite monitoring of lake wide deforestation to establish trends of deforestation and
sediment discharge with time and seasonal peaks of discharge.
- Quantification of sediments currently entering the Lake with indication of seasonal variations
(measurements of flows and sediment discharges).
- Tracing fate of particles discharged into the Lake i.e. vertical and horizontal transport
(sediment cores, hydraulic studies, measurements of sedimentation, modelling).
Mid-term evaluation mission
90
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- Detailed sedimentation and sediment impact studies including water column impacts on
phyto-plankton, zoo-plankton and of fish communities as well as impacts on benthic fauna
(based on water and sediment samples).
4. Status of Results. The initial Baseline Review Report for the Sediment Special Study was
available in January 1996. Hydrodynamic investigations were made in late 1996 early 1997 and
a report: "Flow, Thermal Regime and Sediment Transport Studies in Lake Tanganyika" was
available in 1997 (see § 3.2.4). One of the results is a hydrodynamic model capable of simulating
horizontal and vertical transports of sediments (and other conservative substances) in the Lake.
The model has not yet been installed in the region and has not been physically available for the
evaluation mission.
5. Except from the hydrodynamic study (1996-97) the actual data collection from the field has
started only recently. Thus, in Zambia and Tanzania the activities started in early 1998 and in
Burundi around the middle of 1998. D.R.Congo is still awaiting an improvement of the political
situation. This implies that only few data has been collected until now. A station for receiving
NOAA satellite images has been established in Kigoma (LARST, see annex 4) and made
operational in early 1998.
6. A large number of sediment cores have been collected in January 1998. The Project is still
awaiting the results from Arizona University.
7. A GIS system has been developed in UK; it has not yet been installed in the region and has
not been available for the evaluation mission.
8. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the overall strategy of the sediment special study
is not clearly documented, i.e. how the study will enlighten the cause/effect relationships and
which assessment tools will be used. However, the evaluation mission has been informed by the
SSS scientific responsible that the approach included the set-up of an operational management
system based on catchment models according to the following process:
Using satellite data and GIS as well as transport data
Sediment distribution in the Lake (model)
Impact on biodiversity
The system will be able to simulate the effects of different scenarios of land developments in the
basin and be at disposal for a future management organisation. The evaluation mission agrees on
this strategy.
9. Recommendation. It is recommended that the project elaborates a technical description on
the scientific strategy for (quantitative) assessment of the impacts from excessive sediment
discharges on the Lake ecosystems. The foreseen management tools system shall be described,
and as far as possible, be developed in collaboration with the future users. Elements like
databases, GIS, and models should be installed and used in the region as soon as possible.
Mid-term evaluation mission
91
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
10. Finding. The sediment dating data were not available yet at the time for the evaluation
mission. The mission finds that the dating of sediment cores is a key element in the assessment of
the sedimentation rate during recent periods and possible increase of sediment discharges due to
the human occupation of the basin. This is the only method enabling a retrospective evaluation of
the development of sedimentation. Therefore, the results from this part of the study should form
the basis for monitoring strategies as well as prioritisation of management interventions.
11. Recommendation. The dating analyses of sediment cores should be finalised as soon as
possible, and the results used in the final programming of activities under the Sediment Special
Study. In order to ensure the transfer of knowledge, the dating analyses should associate the
regional scientists with the scientists of the University of Arizona.
12. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the hydrometric programme is professionally run
by the involved water departments and university departments and that it is progressing well.
But the start has been late. Some scales have not been installed yet (particularly in Burundi). The
evaluation mission considers that the time left for measurements is relatively short to obtain
reliable rating curves for level/flow calculations.
13. Recommendation. To assure that a maximum of corresponding water level and flow
measurements is available for the establishment of water level/flow relationships, the mission
recommends to measure (at least) the relative water levels at the time of flow measurement where
scales are not yet installed. The relative water levels can later be converted to actual levels (when
scales are in place).
14. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the measurements of suspended solids transports
are made professionally, by the responsible teams. However, no quantified discrimination
between organic and inorganic substances is allowed in the work programme. Excessive loads of
organic matter cause other impacts on the Lake ecosystems than loads of inorganic material.
Moreover, the two fractions spread differently in the Lake.
15. Recommendation. It is recommended to include Loss on Ignition (a simple analysis giving
the organic fraction of Total Suspended Solids) in the programme for river water samples.
16. Finding. The evaluation mission considers that the objectives of mineralogical sediment
analyses are not clear and that their results are not significant for the immediate objectives of the
project. Furthermore, the operative methods that have been used do not allow the analyse the
finest fractions and the local laboratories (X-ray diffractometers, clay preparation) are
insufficient for making routine analyses in this field.
17. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends to justify the mineralogical analyses
by arguments, which have not yet been presented, and modify the operating methods (and to
justify the quality of the results), or to simply give up these analyses which would simplify the
working plan of the SSS.
18. Finding. The SSS programme is not found coherent on transports of dissolved substances
and there is no sustained description explaining the end use justification for the actual choice of
parameters. One example is the choice of nutrient elements, which is not the same in all riparian
countries. The fact that many freshwaters in Africa suffer from increasing eutrophication due to
Mid-term evaluation mission
92
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
land based nutrient sources, and that the sensitivity of Lake Tanganyika ecosystems to increased
nutrient loads is not known, emphasises that this problem cannot be overlooked in a future water
quality management programme. In order to assess the tendencies of transporting N and P to the
Lake, it is necessary to make a global estimation based on measures (harmonised between the
countries) of the representative loads.
19. Recommendation. It is recommended that the analyses of river transports be made coherent
between the countries and with the objectives of the study, meaning that the actual choice of
parameters is directly related to the assessment methodologies. The evaluation mission
recommends moreover that a systematic assessment of the trends in nutrient inputs to the Lake
be included in the study, requiring routine assessments of transports of Total Nitrogen, Inorganic
Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, and Silicate.
20. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the programme is not fully coherent when it
comes to impact studies on e.g. invertebrates and phyto-plankton and finds that assessment
methods are not finally identified. Moreover, the mission is not convinced that the sampling
strategies chosen (relatively few stations near the river mouths sampled currently) will turn out
to be optimal. Since the samples are taken from gradients of impacts (which moreover changes in
time), the results risk to show a very high variability from campaign to campaign, which may
hamper the interpretation of the results.
21. Recommendation. The project should describe more specifically the impact hypothesis to
be tested and the assessment methodology to be used. As for the sampling strategy, it is
recommended that the project considers if more information could be obtained by fewer
campaigns, but with a better spatial coverage of stations around the river mouths - describing the
actual extent of the gradually impacted zone.
3.3.3.3 Pollution special studies (PSS)
1. Rationale. The logic behind the Pollution Special Study is based on the hypothesis that the
Lake may receive pollutants from human activities at levels where the ecosystems are impacted.
The project approach includes the following elements (briefly quoted from the NRI proposal):
- Assess the spatial and temporal variation of the state of pollution in the Lake;
- Estimate (where possible) the rates at which pollutants from the identified sources enter the
Lake;
- Forecast the effects of pollution on the biodiversity;
- Estimate the levels of certain pollutants that could be sustained by the Lake without loss of
biodiversity;
- Formulate strategies for controlling the types of pollution known to have a deleterious effect
on the biodiversity;
- Enable the riparian countries to maintain, beyond the end of the present project, monitoring
on the pollution status and its impacts to the biodiversity, and to implement pollution
controls;
Mid-term evaluation mission
93
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- Develop new (and strengthen existing) links between this project and other pollution
assessment and control studies on Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria as well as on Lake
Tanganyika itself.
2. At the inception workshop the following types of pollution were considered important in
defined particular areas :
- domestic waste water;
- industrial waste water;
- oil products, fertilisers and pesticides;
- heavy metals;
- contaminants associated with sediments carried by the water (rivers);
- non human organic waste, for example from the refinement of sugar cane;
- atmospheric pollution wet and dry deposits;
- pollutants from river transports.
To determine the current impact, the Special Studies Work Plan concentrate on comparison of
pollution levels/biodiversity in selected paired areas expected to be respectively impacted/not
impacted.
1. Status of results: The initial baseline review report for the pollution special study was
available in January 1996. Laboratories were established in Kigoma and Mpulungu in the
beginning of 1998. The actual data collection from the field has started only recently. Thus,
Zambia and Tanzania started (on simple analytical parameters) in early 1998 and Burundi in the
middle of 1998. Screenings of heavy metals in sediments and biota have been ongoing in Kigoma
in 1998. Congo is still awaiting an improvement of the political situation. This implies that only
few data have been collected till now.
2. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the overall strategy of the study is not clearly
documented, i.e. how the study will enlighten the cause/effect relationships and which
assessment tools will be used. At the same time, the evaluation mission recognises that field
studies of the direct impact of pollutants on the species or ecosystem level are very difficult and
time/resources consuming. The major constraints are the following:
3. Direct measurements of hazardous pollutants (heavy metals, pesticides, oil-products) require
expensive and sophisticated analyses, which are not available at the lakeside laboratories. This
means that only a limited number of such analyses will be feasible. Even in cases where such
pollution is actually present, analysis on water samples (from the Lake as well as from the
outlets) will be of limited value due to a very high variability of concentrations (in time and
space) unless a very high number of samples are collected.
4. Effects of e.g. hazardous pollutants may be suddenly lethal or chronic implying that
biological functions like e.g. reproduction are affected. Due to a high natural variability only very
strong effects may be detected by investigations of specific compositions. Moreover, the
interpretation of comparing "polluted" and "non-polluted" areas may be disturbed by natural
spatial differences of the ecosystems.
Mid-term evaluation mission
94
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
5. Recommendation. It is recommended that the project elaborates a technical description of
its scientific strategy for quantitatively assessment of impacts from pollution discharges on the
Lake ecosystems. Technically, the evaluation mission recommends:
- Primarily that the PSS in all four countries focus on quantitative estimates of the pollution
sources. Where direct data cannot be obtained, estimates of loads based on e.g. industrial
production figures may be used. This exercise should be seen as an essential tool for a first
screening of potential threats. Using the hydrodynamic model, the expected concentration
levels in the Lake can be estimated (based on the estimated loads), and the potential impact
areas established based on effect values derived from the extensive literature on
ecotoxicological effects from known pollutants.
- Secondly, it is recommended to focus on pollution indicators in the Lake such as heavy
metals, pesticides, and oil products in stable matrices where accumulation may occur e.g.
sediments, bivalves, fish, etc. (as it is being done in Kigoma). The levels found should be
compared to levels from the literature (e.g. Förstner and Whitman 1981, who have examined
87 lake sediments mostly from remote areas).
6. Recommendation. Where indicators show levels, which cannot be directly related to known
sources, special programmes to identify the sources will be necessary. Eutrophication impacts
and oxygen demands from excessive organic discharges should be included if deemed relevant
from nutrient load estimates.
7. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the PSS programme is not coherent when it comes
to analytical methods, QA and use of equipment. Although the same packages of equipment have
been delivered to a several of the involved laboratories, different methodologies are used and no
comparable QA systems exist.
8. Recommendation. It is recommended that the harmonisation of analytical methods be
assured to the extent possible. Anyway, performance tests should be made to clarify to what
level of reliability the individual laboratories work. A coherent (and simple) QA system should
be set-up and monitored. Intercalibration exercises should be performed between all involved
laboratories doing comparable analyses.
9. Finding. The evaluation mission has no knowledge of actions promoting the development (or
reinforcement) of links between this project and other pollution control studies concerning the
lakes of the region.
3.3.3.4 Biodiversity Special Studies (BioSS)
1. Rationale. According to the Prodoc, the Biodiversity Special Studies (BioSS) aim at
determining the patterns and structure of the biodiversity in the Lake, focusing on the proposed
national parks and other conservation areas. This is done to assure that strategic areas of the Lake
are protected in order to avoid detrimental losses of the unique species and ecosystems existing in
the Lake. The project approaches include four activity areas for the BioSS:
- Review of current levels of biodiversity in the Lake
- Identify the distribution of major types of habitat, with particular focus on existing and
suggested protected areas
Mid-term evaluation mission
95
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- Suggest priority areas for conservation, based on existing knowledge and recommendations
from other special studies and supplemented by additional survey work, where necessary
- Develop a sustainable biodiversity monitoring programme.
2. Status of results. The Biodiversity Special Study review report was available in January
1996. After training of divers in late 1997, field activities have been initiated in all four countries,
but progress is slow. A data base system has been developed in UK by the NRI Consortium in
early 1998, but has not yet been introduced in the beneficiary countries.
3. Finding. Although it is stated in several reports that large amounts of taxonomic data exist
from earlier studies, a database and a first attempt to assess the level of biodiversity on this basis
is not available after three years of project implementation. This implies that the planning of the
field studies has not optimally taken into account the existing knowledge.
4. Recommendation. It is of utmost importance that the database is finalised, updated with
existing taxonomic data, and made available for the relevant institutions so that it can serve in the
planning of field work.
5. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the methodologies, which the project will use for
assessing "the level of biodiversity", are not clearly described in the documents, but at the same
time it acknowledges that the discipline is new and that approaches have to be tested on real data.
However, a number of methods exist on how to quantify or compare species diversity and
abundance (e.g. diversity indices, cluster analyses, factor analyses and other multivariate
techniques). These techniques are not simple and it may require a substantial training effort to
build the necessary capacity among the operators who are going to use them.
6. Recommendation. It is recommended that the project as soon as possible clarify its
methodologies regarding "level of biodiversity" and initiate training in statistical assessments of
species diversity and abundance. Since the Lake Tanganyika is unique in the world regarding
endemic species, a special capacity for recurrent assessments of biodiversity must be assured in
the region.
3.3.3.5 Fishing Practises Special Studies (FPSS)
1. Rationale. The starting hypothesis is that the exploitation of fish stocks in the Lake is
extensive and is likely to impact the biodiversity of the fish communities. The Fishing Practises
Special Study (FPSS) should identify possible damaging effects and propose mitigating measures
if deemed necessary.
2. The project has defined three types of fishing:
- Subsistence fishing
- Traditional full-time fishing to generate an income
- Industrial mechanised fishing , with solid capital, using generally seines and distributing the
fish on the large markets.
3. The approach adopted during the project inception workshop includes the following
activities:
Mid-term evaluation mission
96
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- assess the direct and indirect consequences of the fishing, based on the existing statistics
(LTR data and other statistics);
- list the type of material used in the villages, the composition of hauls according to type of
material and habitat, the total haul as well as the structure of the fishing grounds and the
role of the fishing in the community (socio-economic);
- note the present quantity of fish in the fishing grounds using rapid assessment methods;
- make specific studies on the inshore habitats, particularly in the plant nursery zones and in
the river mouths;
- analyse the dynamics of the coastal fish population and the links to the pelagic fishing
grounds, using the models where it turns out to be appropriate;
- assess the business of ornamental fish, including the most affected species and habitats and
the potential impacts.
4. Status of Results: During 1997 and 1998 the project has accomplished a great number of
visits to Tanzanian and Zambian coastal villages. The results are documented in individual field
reports (hence certain difficulties of exploiting these reports). The reports also contain socio-
economic data. Field work has not yet commenced in Burundi and in D.R.Congo.
5. Finding. Among the three general working hypotheses of the project22, the evaluation
mission estimates that the pressure on the ecosystem from different types of fisheries may well
be the most serious threat to the Lake's biodiversity at the actual moment. Consequently, the
mission emphasises the importance of a thorough scientific background for the future
management decisions concerning the Lake.
6. Finding. The evaluation mission has also noticed that the fishing sector is the one for which
the largest number of substantial data already exist. This is due particularly to the existence of the
comprehensive LTR project since 1992. Consequently, it was agreed at the Inception Workshop
to make a first evaluation of the effects of fisheries based on existing official statistics, and
particularly from the compilation work done by the LTR project. The mission very much agrees
on this approach, but has not been presented to any report from such a work. Moreover, it
appears that the LTR project has accomplished a comprehensive socio-economic study in 1997
including 923 interviews of craft fishermen, 431 interviews with processors/traders at 66 sites in
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, and Zambia.
7. Recommendation. It is recommended that the LTBP project compile the existing
information on fisheries and fishing practises as soon as possible according to its own objectives
and develop a work plan according to the identified gaps. It is likewise recommended that further
work in this area be closely coordinated with the LTR activities planned for the period up to the
year 2001 (see figure 3).
8. Finding. It appears to the evaluation mission that there is a widespread mix-up in the various
documents of the project (including the field reports) regarding the sociological elements, the
22 The basic idea of the project is that the biodiversity of the Lake Tanganyika is threatened by: (1) pollution; (2)
sediment discharges due to changed landuse practices; (3) excessive and destructive fishing practices.
Mid-term evaluation mission
97
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
economic elements, and technical elements on fishing practises (and the elements concerning
awareness and environmental education). The mission agrees on the approach that field works of
FPSS and SE/EE can been combined in most cases for practical reasons. The fact that these
activities are carried out together does not mean, however, that their results should be mixed up in
the reports. Although inter-linked, they must be considered different disciplines with separate
problems and methodologies. Moreover, the evaluation mission has noticed that from one
operator to another and from one country to another the reports are not homogeneous regarding
methodology and systematic. It will therefore become still more difficult to make a synthesis of
the studies unless these faults are corrected as soon as possible.
9. Recommendation. It is recommended that sociology, economics and fishing practises are
treated separately in the project reports and that future field trips are documented by individual
reports for each special study. Moreover, there is a need for harmonised systematic field report
formats in order to: (1) assure that all necessary information is obtained; (2) make the final
synthesising work easier.
3.3.3.6 Socio-Economic/Environmental Education Special Studies (SE/EE SS)
1. In addition to the above mentioned concerning the mix-up with the FPSS, the evaluation
mission regrets that the sociological studies, the economic studies and the environmental
education actions are officially and systematically grouped within the activities and the results of
the project. The evaluation mission finds that this is a mistake since it is in principle a matter of
three different components even though they have some overlapping zones and even though the
field missions may treat the three fields simultaneously. In spite of the fact that it is
recommended to separate the sociological studies, the economic studies and the environmental
development aspects for the rest of the project and taken into consideration the habits that have
been picked up, they are treated together in the present evaluation report.
2. Rationale. Knowledge on the socio-economic conditions of the region will serve as a basis
for identification of sustainable management interventions for the Lake. This knowledge should
cover what is commonly called "socio-economic factors" in the lakeside communities as well as
sectoral developments for which the social approaches are based on economics (for example
industrial development). In order to be planned in the best possible way, the Environmental
Education element should follow the socio- and economic studies and, as far as the fishing
communities are concerned, after the FPSS. The purpose of the EESS is to pave the way in order
to establish the necessary awareness and understanding in the communities for new practises less
harmful to the biodiversity. For the moment, the project focus on the consciousness raising
concerning the necessity of giving up certain fishing practices, but the EESS could as well concern
other target groups: town-dwellers, farmers, industrials and, why not?, policy decision-makers.
3. Finding. The evaluation mission emphasises that it is important not to mix up the studies
that are necessary to the design and the organisation of campaigns for consciousness raising and
environmental education (which is certainly the role of the project) with the carrying out of such
campaigns, which could also be the role of other operators (media, teachers, NGO, leaders, etc.)
4. According to the Inception Report, the socio-economic activities include:
- Study of potential tourism around the Lake;
Mid-term evaluation mission
98
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- Socio-economic studies on representative lakeside communities;
- Enquiries to their awareness and expectations concerning the Lake and the LTBP project
itself;
- Study of the possibility of other income generating activities, whether from tourism, fishing
skills, or other sources;
- Detailed studies of all other sectors in each of the four countries.
5. Status of results: Concerning the lakeside communities, a rather comprehensive socio-
economic baseline report exists (available January 1996), covering particularly Tanzania and
Zambia whilst data from Burundi and D.R.Congo are sparse. As mentioned above, the project
has accomplished a great number of visits to Tanzanian and Zambian coastal villages in 1997 and
1998. The results are documented in individual field reports which also contains data for the
special study on fishing practises. Field work has not yet been initiated in Burundi and
D.R.Congo.
6. Finding. The evaluation mission is very impressed by the establishment of village
committees at the Zambian shore of the Lake. 47 operational village committees as well as a
framework for inter-village representation and collaboration has been established in 1997-1998.
This operation is inspired from other Zambian experiences of villages situated at the shore of
artificial lakes such as the Lake Kariba. The pyramid system of representation and cooperation
that has been worked out pleases the communities as well as the authorities23. The methodology
used, including visits by the chiefs of the villages to other areas, meetings of Headmen, etc.
appears to be very successful.
7. Recommendation. The project is strongly recommended to reproduce in the other countries
the village committee approach used in Zambia.
3.3.4 Capacity building
1. General finding. The main reasons for the establishment of the GEF project are the
presumption of the existence of serious environmental problems and the realisation of the
necessity of creating local capacities "around the Lake" to deal with such problems. The
evaluation mission therefore emphasises that a reinforcement of the capacities of the beneficiary
countries has an absolute priority position in the project.
2. The capacity building includes three elements:
3) mobilisation of necessary human resources for a new type of management of the Lake and
for its long term monitoring (§ 3.3.4.1);
4) equipment of the national structures (and if necessary of the complete Lake management) in
order to be able to monitor the Lake and its basin (§ 3.3.4.2);
5) creation of a Lake management framework (concepts and principles, regional convention,
strategic action plan, implementation of the complete Lake management); these questions
23 The authorities even indicate that they receive much more approaches than before and that the demands arrive to
them faster thanks to the system that has been worked out.
Mid-term evaluation mission
99
November 1998
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
are being dealt with in § 3.3.5 and 3.3.6; the impact of the project on the national
institutional frameworks is treated in § 3.3.4.3.
3.3.4.1 Training
1. Status of results. Table 7 below (based on the table prepared by the PCU) indicates the
status of results concerning the training undertaken within the frameworks of the project.
2. Finding. Presently, the capacity building focus on the immediate needs of the project. The
training of national experts is therefore directed towards the data acquisition and the equipment
of the national institutions has been defined according to these needs. Yet, the training of national
experts should primarily be directed towards the fulfilment of the needs for a long term
management and monitoring of the Lake.
Priority recommendation: Target the training towards the identified needs for the post-
project phase
The evaluation mission feels that the training of national experts should not be limited to the
immediate needs of the special studies. It should also and especially consider the needs for
expertise in the post-project phase. To do so, it is important to define as soon as possible the
outline of the future management entity of the Lake (mandates and job profiles) and to start
training of a sufficient number of national experts to fill the planned jobs, taking into account an
inevitable loss rate owing to predictable changes in career (for example by training two experts to
the same type of job). At the present implementation level of the project the human resources of
each country are sufficiently well-known to allow an immediate identification of the national
experts to be trained.
1. Finding. A training cannot be successful unless the persons to be trained have been carefully
selected according to their initial level and to the final level to be achieved (supposing that the
training method has been designed with reference to the persons to be trained). Another constant
problem of the training in the developing countries is to obtain a sufficient critical mass to make
the field of recently created capacities independent of departures or (frequent) movements of
staff. The project has not been an exception to these two rules. The training of divers (for the
inventory and the monitoring of biodiversity) has only been successful with high level scientists
at first and in a sufficient number to ensure that the teams did not break up right on the first
departure. This problem has arisen particularly in Tanzania.
2. Recommendation. A particular attention should be paid to the selection of staff to be
trained according to the pursued targets. The number of trained persons should be sufficient to
ensure that the critical mass of qualified persons is reached or even better exceeded.
Mid-term evaluation mission
100
November 1998
Table 7 (cont'd.) : Training undertaken until today by the LTBP project (including the needs for training as stated previously)
Dates
Target groups
Participants
Title of training
Training location
Training leader
Proj. Objectives
addressed
01/98
Regional specialists
BDI x 4, DRC x 1,
Advanced bathymetric and sediment coring
Tanzania
A. Cohen + internat. 5
Land science
URT x 4, ZAM x 2
techniques
team assistants.
30/01/98
Local drama group
Lakeshore
Nsongela
3
04-05/98
Regional (4)
Workshop on Socio-economy/Environmental
Mpulungu ?
Nsongela, Damaseke 3,4
education
05-06/98
University researcher
Evariste Nzeyimana
Advanced methods of nutrient analyses
Free University of
Prof. Leo Goyens,
5
(BDI)
Brussels (Belgium)
Prof. Bayens
06-07/98
National BioSS
Francophone
BIOSS & follow-up to dive training
Bujumbura
Dr Vos, Gashagaza
5
experts
(2 weeks each)
Martens, West,
Allison (3 w/each)
?
Database researchers
? x 3
How to do literature searches and how to use
5
databases
To be set
BIOSS teams
BIOSS dive teams +
Taxonomic training for biodiversity
Cruise of Congo coast
SLA team
5
1998/99
terrestrial support
monitoring
BIOSS teams
4 Regional scientists
Belgium
Royal Belgian
5
Institute of Natural
Science
On-going
National experts
PSS field team
Pollution (on-the-job training
BDI, URT, ZAM
? + F. Chale
5
On-going
National experts
SSS field teams
Sedimentation (on-the-job training)
URT
Nkotagu
5
On-going
National experts
SSS field teams
Sedimentation (on-the-job training)
ZAM
Sischingabula
5
On-going
National experts
BioSS field teams
Biodiversity (on-the-job trainign)
BDI
Ntakimazi
5
National experts
BioSS field teams
Biodiversity (on-the-job training)
DRC
Nshombo
5
National experts
PSS field teams
Pollution (on-the-job training))
BDI
Gabriel Hakizimana
5
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3.3.4.2 Equipment of national institutions
1. Status of results. The national institutions competent in the field of aquatic biology and
water chemistry are equipped by the project. Except for D.R.Congo, where the CRH in Uvira
has been almost completely pillaged or destroyed, the equipment is generally satisfactory.
However, the material has been designed for the short term objectives of the project phase and
not for a long term monitoring of the Lake and its basin. Furthermore, the key equipment like the
database and the GIS have not yet been installed in the region and are therefore not available for
the national experts and the authorities of the project.
2. Finding. The evaluation mission estimates that the equipment of the national institutions
should not have the sole purpose of enabling them to assist the NRI Consortium in completing
the project. The evaluation mission finds that a long term vision must be favoured. When that has
been accepted a new question concerning the strategic order has to be dealt with by the project
authorities: is it necessary, in order to ensure the monitoring of the Lake, to establish a new
unique institution or a network of existing institutions?
3. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends to establish in future a network of
existing institutions with a reference centre in Bujumbura and to equip these institutions
according to the needs for long term management and monitoring. The establishment of such a
network presupposes that all the involved institutions are working by the same methods and are
using the same quality assurance systems. No matter what, the definition of supplementary
equipment has to be based on a review of the capacities of the existing institutions and according
to the results of the special studies.
Priority recommendation: Target the equipment of the national structures towards the
needs of the monitoring post-project as well as against the intercalibration and the
exchange of data
As for the previous recommendation, the evaluation mission feels that the equipment of the
national structures should be designed not only according to the needs of the special studies but
also according to the needs of monitoring of the post-project phase.
For that purpose, the equipment should avoid any double use and be homogenised to facilitate the
intercalibration and the exchange of data between the riparian countries.
3.3.4.3 Effects of the project on the national institutional frameworks
1. At the time of the evaluation mission, the project has still not produced enough concrete
results to have an impact on the national institutional frameworks. On the other hand, the
dynamics of the project has mobilised the national institutional frameworks in each of the
countries on the problem concerning the threats against the Lake and its conservation.
2. This mobilisation would have been even more significant (and/or stronger) if the choice of
certain national operators by the project had respected the official mandates of the existing
institutions (see § 3.2.6 and 3.2.7).
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
3. Recommendation. The Convention and the SAP in preparation should take into
consideration the national legal and institutional frameworks and vice versa the institutional
framework of each of the countries involved in the Convention and in the SAP should be
harmonised with the new methods for joint management of the Lake and its basin.
3.3.5 Regional agreement (Convention)
1. Rationale. The elaboration and the implementation of a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the
joint management of the Lake Tanganyika and its basin should result from a formal decision of
the countries involved in the SAP. Actually, the application of any regional plan should not be
envisaged as long as the authorities have not demonstrated their approval by a legally binding
agreement. Furthermore, the limits of rights and obligations of the parties involved in the SAP
should be carefully stipulated in an agreement constituting an international treaty and forcing the
national legislation.
2. Finding. During the Lusaka meeting of February 25-27, 1998, it was agreed that the name of
the regional agreement should indicate that the purpose of the agreement is the sustainable
management of the Lake instead of being limited to pollution control and protection of the
biodiversity of the Lake. A general consensus has been reached on the formulation: "Convention
for the sustainable management of the Lake Tanganyika basin". In this spirit, and even though the
definitive name of the legal instrument formalising the regional cooperation framework has still
not been appointed, the evaluation mission proposes to call it "the Convention" in order to avoid
any periphrasis.
3. Finding. The progress of the process of elaborating the Convention has been slow for several
reasons:
- the insufficiency of the baseline study;
- the lack of reference to the international and regional framework for integrated water resources
management;
- the insufficient collaboration with the LTR project, presently preparing a regional agreement
on fishing independently of the other aspects of resources management.
4. Finding. The questions of collaborating with the LTR project has already been examined in §
2.4.1 and 3.3.3.5. As for the conventions, at least 10 texts, more or less legally binding, ratified or
not by the riparian states, contain principle measures concerning water resources management:
5) The African Convention for the conservation of nature and natural resources, signed in
Algiers on September 15, 1968;
6) The Ramsar Convention from February 2nd, 1971, concerning the wetlands of international
importance, particularly as habitats for waterfowl;
7) The Lagos Action Plan, adopted under the auspices of the AUO in 1980;
8) The Abuja Treaty of June 3rd, 1991 instituting the African Economic Community;
9) The Frame Convention of the United Nations on Climate Change, signed in New York on
May 9, 1992;
10) The Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biologic Diversity of June 5, 1992;
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
11) The "Agenda 21" adopted by the countries participating in the Rio Conference contains a
number of arrangements on management and Protection of fresh water resources and their
quality, even though it is not legally binding (see in bibliography the reference G. Cougny,
1998, handed over to the PCU);
12) The United Nations Convention of June 17, 1994 (Paris) to combat desertification in those
countries experiencing seriously drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa;
13) More recently, the Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international
watercourses has been adopted by the General Meeting of the United Nations and opened to
signature on May 21, 1997;
14) Finally, three out of four riparian countries are signatories to the SADC Protocol on shared
watercourse systems (§ 2.5.2 and annex 7).
15. Finding. According to the rules of international law, the measures of treaties, agreements and
conventions ratified by a country apply to national law. It is therefore essential to make a list of
the positive laws in the four (five) countries of the Lake Tanganyika basin in order to prepare the
"touching-up" of the national laws that have to be made comply with international laws,
including the future Convention.
16. Status of results. The reference documents for preparing the Convention by the project are
the following:
- The baseline study (insufficient for the needs of the project);
- Legal and institutional measures for the management of lake and river basins: problems to be
dealt with in a convention and possible approaches (LTBP, January 1998);
- Recommendations of the legal and institutional workshop concerning the agreement project
(February 1998, Lusaka, draft).
17. Finding. Generally, the evaluation mission estimates that the current process of preparation
does not refer sufficiently to the pertinent texts in the field and does not "stick" closely enough
to the realities of the region and to the latest developments concerning shared water resources.
The above mentioned document of January 1998 analyses numerous particular agreements but
ignores the most important for the region, namely the SADC Protocol.
18. Recommendation. The "Convention" should be based on the above mentioned international
agreements, already signed and/or ratified or in the progress of being so by the countries of the
basin and in particular on the operational regional agreements. Furthermore, it should be avoided
that the discussions on the Convention get lost in terminology problems. Finally, it is urgent to
produce a preliminary project for the Convention and to communicate it to the governments since
the SAP is subordinate to the Convention and not the opposite.
19. Finding. The evaluation mission points out that the process of elaborating and adopting a
regional Convention is a long and difficult process. The present status of this component can
only give rise to a legitimate concern from the political authorities of the beneficiary countries of
the project. The cooperation in this field should have started much earlier.
20. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that an informal meeting be
organised as soon as possible for the project supervising ministers of the beneficiary countries (to
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
whom it would be wise to associate Rwanda) in order to confirm the principle of a regional
Convention (including the agreement on fisheries which is being prepared by the LTR project)
and to stipulate the outlines of its elaboration.
3.3.6 Strategic Action Plan (SAP)
1. Rationale. If the Convention is to define the cooperation spirit regarding the joint
management of the Lake Tanganyika basin resources, the SAP should stipulate its letter. The
main features of the SAP are correctly defined in the Prodoc, particularly its continuous
development and its adaptability to obviously changing (natural and human) conditions.
2. Finding. The evaluation mission finds that the SAP is an appropriate tool for a sound,
integrated, balanced and sustainable management of the Lake Tanganyika basin. Most of the
characteristics adopted by successive workshops organised by the project can therefore be
maintained. On the other hand, the evaluation mission estimates that the current process of
preparing the content of the SAP (at a national or regional level) is illogical and counterproductive
and risks to result in a plan which is too expensive for the riparian countries and does not even
target the real problems.
3. Recommendation. The evaluation mission recommends that the principle of elaborating a
SAP be confirmed but that the process be completely revised, especially according to the
orientations of the regional Convention (including the integration of the LTR contributions) and
the results of the baseline studies and the special studies. This recommendation is already
mentioned in § 3.1.6.
3.3.7 General conclusion
1. Finding. Considering the importance of the Lake Tanganyika for the global biodiversity and
the strong will of the riparian countries to lead to a new way of balanced and environmentally
sound management of the Lake, the evaluation mission estimates that it would be very harmful to
terminate the project in spite of the numerous imperfections that have been revealed during the
evaluation. At the same time, however, the evaluation mission finds it impossible to achieve the
expected results if the project continues in the same line as up till now.
2. Finding. In spite of the noticed slowness and hesitations, the general impression of the
project progress is that the organisation is well established (even though it needs to be
improved); the institutional arrangements have been well integrated by the national officials and
the administrative and accounting procedures are running smoothly. However, until now the
productivity of the GEF contributions have remained at a very low level and the consistency of
the work is insufficient after a project period of three years. It is therefore logical to conclude as
follows:
3) the project will not be completed within the prescribed time;
4) it will not be able to bear fruit unless the improvements, which the evaluation mission has
tried to identify in the present report, are implemented.
Priority recommendation: Considering the present state of progress of the project and the
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
necessary time for these recommendations to give the expected effects and considering
its experience with projects of this scope, the evaluation mission estimates that it is
necessary to prolong the project period by approximately one and a half year, postponing
the date of completion to December 31, 2001 in stead of July 31, 2000 as originally
anticipated.
This prolongation should be made within the limits of the available budget.
For that purpose the Project Coordination Unit should submit to the Project Steering
Committee a new working plan and a revised budget which comply with the new
deadlines and follow the direction of the above mentioned recommendations.
4.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations included in the present report are recalled in table 8 hereafter.
The priority recommendations are marked by bold letters, indicating also their number of
reference in the executive summary (PR 1, PR 2, etc.) just like the general recommendations
corresponding to the lessons learned from the project (GR 1, GR 2, etc.).
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations
N° Recommendation
Beneficiary
Comments
§
1 PR 1: Refocus the project on the GEF concentration area "International Waters"
PSC, PCU
3.1.1
2 PR 3: Ensure the consistency of the project with the principles for integrated water
PCU
3.1.3
resources management and with the pertinent conventions in this field, at a global as
well as a regional level
3 PR 2: Reformulate and stabilise the logical framework
PCU
Take into consideration the redefinition of the 3.1.4.
objectives and outputs proposed in § 3.1.8
1
4 Inform the national field operators of the use which will be made of their work and of the
PCU
3.1.4.
way the work will be evaluated
2
5 Establish an new organisation chart taking into consideration the other recommendations
PSC, PCU
3.1.5
concerning titles and mandates of the project organs
6 The organisation chart recommended by the evaluation mission
PSC, PCU
See figure 6
3.1.5
7 Change the titles of certain project organs:
3.1.5
Regional Steering Committee Project Steering Committee (PSC)
National Project Coordinators National Project Directors (NPD)
National Steering Committee National Follow-up Committee (NFC)
National Project Coordinator's Assistant National Technical Advisor (NTA)
8 PR 4: Revise the organisation chart of the project, write down the mandates and/or
PSC, PCU
Take into consideration the other recommendations
3.1.5
Terms of Reference for each organ as well as detailed descriptions of each position
relating to these organs or positions.
Do not create new structures, nor new positions.
Respect the hierarchical order and the precise
functions of the different positions and organs.
Make the titles of organs and positions comply with
their real mandates.
Respect the national institutional frameworks (do not
entrust tasks to other national structures than those
having the official authority)
9 PR 10: Respect the logic order of the production of results
PCU
3.1.6
10 PR 20: Invite the Rwandan government to participate, as observer, in the next meeting
PSC
3.1.7
of the Project Steering Committee and put the practical details of its association with
the project on the agenda for this meeting
11 Reformulate and restructure the objectives and outputs of the project until its completion,
PSC, PCU
See the new formulation in the text
3.1.8
simplifying them and concentrating on meeting the fundamental needs of the beneficiary
countries
12 Reinforce the role of technical control of the Execution Office according to the decisions
UNOPS
3.2.2
that should have been made on the next meeting of the Project Steering Committee based
on the present evaluation report
13 Present at the next PSC meeting a table of the budget situation indicating the present
UNOPS
3.2.3
situation as well as committed but still unsettled expenses, if any (for example by FAO?)
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations (cont'd.)
14 Reinforce the relations between the project and the UNDP offices and associate more UNDP, PCU
3.2.5
closely the persons in charge of the programmes concerning the implementation and
harmonisation of project activities to the ones of other development projects in their
respective countries
15 PR 7: Establish which institutions are (or will be) mandated to fulfil each of the
PCU
In case some of the institutions that are not presently 3.2.6
monitoring/assessment functions that are planned for the future
involved in the project should be responsible for some
of these functions, a plan should be prepared and
implemented in order to involve them as soon as
possible.
In case some of the present mandates should be
modified (for technical, economic or practical reasons
or for specific reasons in relation to the needs of the
Lake management) there should be taken initiatives to
make the necessary institutional (and statutory)
changes.
16 PR 5: Involve the nationals further in the definition of the work programmes
PCU
3.2.7
17 Promote the progressive taking over of responsibility of coordination tasks by national PCU, Govts.
3.2.7
experts
18 PR 6: Make the best qualified national experts at regional level work in close
PCU
Identify the best qualified and well-known national 3.2.7
relationship with the recently recruited facilitators
experts at regional level in the different fields of the
project.
19 Make local specialists intervene in other countries than their own in the same capacity as
PCU
3.2.7
the expatriate facilitators and in close collaboration with these
20 Form two-person teams "expatriate facilitator + local specialist) in the four main fields of
PCU
3.2.7
the special studies (pollution, sedimentation, fishing grounds, socio-economy)
21 Reduce the expenses for (expatriate or national) expert missions for participating in project
PCU
3.2.8
meetings to a minimum, taking into consideration the achievement of the expected project
results
22 Reduce the charging of time of expatriate experts on the project budget to works carried
UNOPS,
3.2.8
out in the region, with the exception (to be defined by UNOPS and the NRI Consortium)
PCU
time for preparing and writing reports, if necessary
23 PR 18: Move back the project head office to Bujumbura as soon as the two conditions,
PSC
The condition concerning the embargo has been 3.2.9
which makes it possible, have been fulfilled: lifting of the curfew and of the embargo
fulfilled on January 22, 1999
24 PR 19: Start elaborating immediately the scenarios concerning the restarting of
PCU
Since the human resources are already in place, the 3.2.9
activities in D.R.Congo.
PCU should pay a special attention to the procedures
of a rapid transportation and installation of the
necessary logistics in Uvira.
25 PR 12: Direct the production of project results towards the needs for a joint
PCU
3.3.1
management of the Lake.
26 PR 14: Complete the data bases regrouping the existing data and install them in the
PCU
3.3.2
appropriate institutions
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations (cont'd.)
27 PR 11: Make the synthesis of all the pertinent scientific knowledge acquired till now,
PCU
3.3.2
which are necessary for the definition of the special studies and for the elaboration of
Lake management tools
28 Make an up-dated database on legal and statutory texts concerning water and environment
PCU
3.3.2
in the Lake basin countries, in the region and at international level
29 Make an economic study of the Lake region and sectoral studies of the "water" and
PCU
3.3.2
"fishing" sectors
30 PR 13: Treat as a major problem of the project the question of verifying (or
PCU
3.3.3.
invalidating) the basic hypothesis concerning the environmental impacts that are
1
threatening the Lake
31 PR 15: Make a real effort to implement the necessary special studies as soon as
PCU
3.3.3.
possible in order to allow them to constitute the background for the Strategic Action
1
Plan
32 PR 16: Prepare a document (as a supplement to the present "standing instructions"
PCU
Prepare the activities in collaboration with the national 3.3.3.
concerning the sampling and the laboratory work) on the overall technical approach
counterparts in order to guarantee that:
1
and on the way the collected data may contribute to a better knowledge of the problems
1) the local knowledge is used in an optimum way;
and to the development of future management tools
2) the scientific approach it-self is transferred to the
involved national institutions
33 PR 17: Prepare and implement before the end of the project sustainable PCU, Govts
The objective is to meet from now on the future needs 3.3.3.
mechanisms/procedures for professional exchanges between national experts
for exchange of information and experiences and for 1
continuous harmonisation
34 Treat the hydrological assessment of the Lake as an entirely separate question and assign
PCU-SSS
Integrate also the results of the FAO/Finnida study on 3.3.3.
a particular importance to it
the dynamics of sediments
2
35 Make a technical description on the (quantitative) evaluation strategy of the impacts of
PCU-SSS
The management tools system should be described 3.3.3.
excessive contributions of sediments to the ecosystem of the Lake
and developed as far as possible in collaboration with 2
the future users
36 Install the databases, the GIS and the models in the regions as soon as possible and train
PCU-SSS
3.3.3.
the national operators in the use of them
2
37 Complete the analyses on sediment core data as soon as possible and use the results in
PCU-SSS
3.3.3.
the final programming of activities for the SSS
2
38 Associate the scientists of the region with the scientists of the University of Arizona
PCU-SSS
Promote the transfer of knowledge
3.3.3.
concerning the data analyses
2
39 Measure (at least) the water levels in relation to the time of measuring the flows where
PCU-SSS
The objective is to ensure the availability of as many 3.3.3.
there are still no water level measurers
corresponding level and flow data as possible for the 2
calibration
Later on, the relating measures could be converted
into real levels (when the water level measurers have
been installed)
40 Include the "Loss of ignition" in the analysing programme of water samples
PCU-SSS
The loss of ignition is a simple analysis showing the 3.3.3.
organic fraction of the total suspended matter
2
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations (cont'd.)
41 Justify the mineralogical analyses (and correct the operative methods and justify the
PCU-SSS
The abandonment of the mineralogical analyses would 3.3.3.
quality of the results) or simply give up on them
simplify the work of the SSS
2
42 Harmonise the analyses of river transports between the countries and with the objectives
PCU-SSS
The choice of parameters should be linked directly to 3.3.3.
of the study
the evaluation methodologies of the problems
2
43 Include in the study the systematic evaluation of the tendencies of discharge of nutrients
PCU-SSS
Routine evaluation of transports of total nitrogen, 3.3.3.
inorganic nitrogen, total phosphorous, orthophosphate 2
and silicate
44 Describe more specifically the impact hypothesis to be verified as well as the
PCU-SSS
Sampling strategy: find out if it is possible to obtain 3.3.3.
methodology to be used
more information by fewer campaigns but by 2
establishing more stations around the river mouths
45 Elaborate a technical description of the PSS strategy for a quantitative evaluation of the
PCU-PSS
3.3.3.
impacts of pollutants discharged to the Lake ecosystem
3
46 Concentrate the PSS of the four countries on quantitative assessments of the pollution
PCU-PSS
This exercise should be seen as an essential tool for a 3.3.3.
sources
screening of the potential threats. By means of the 3
hydrodynamic model the predictable concentration
levels in the Lake can be assessed (based on the
estimated loads of pollutants) and the potential areas
of impact can be established based on values in the
literature concerning the ecotoxicological effects if the
well-known pollutants
47 Use the assessment of pollution loads, based for example on industrial production figures,
where direct data are not available
48 Concentrate on the pollution indicators of the Lake such as heavy metals, pesticides and
PCU-PSS
The resulting levels should be compared to the levels 3.3.3.
oil products in matrix of stable numbers where an accumulation could take place, for
in the literature (for example Förstner and Whitman 3
example sediments, bivalves, fish, etc. (as it is currently done in Kigoma)
1981 who have examined 87 Lake sediments of which
most were far away from the pollution sources).
The effects of eutrophication and the oxygen demand
caused by excessive discharge of organic matters
should be included if deemed pertinent based on the
assessments of the nutrient load. Where the
indicators show levels which cannot be directly linked
to the well-known sources, specific programmes will be
necessary to identify the sources.
49 Harmonise the analytical methods as much as possible. Make performance tests to find
PCU-PSS
A coherent (and simple) quality assurance system can 3.3.3.
out at which level of reliability the laboratories are working
be implemented and monitored. Intercalibration 3
exercises should be practised between all the involved
laboratories making comparable analyses
50 The database should be completed, updated by the existing taxonomic data, and made
PCU-BioSS
3.3.3.
available for the competent institutions in order to ensure that the data are used as basis
4
for the field works
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations (cont'd.)
51 Clarify as soon as possible the methodologies relating to the "level of biodiversity" and
PCU-BioSS
Since the Lake Tanganyika is unique in the world 3.3.3.
undertake the training in statistical assessment of the biodiversity and of the abundance
because of its endemism, it is perfectly justified to 4
of species
create such capacities in the region to ensure regular
assessments in the future
52 Compile as soon as possible the existing information on fishing and prepare a working plan
PCU-FPSS
3.3.3.
according to the identified gaps
5
53 Coordinate the compilation work with the planned LTR project activities for the period 1998-
PCU-FPSS
2001
54 Treat sociology, economy and fishing practices separately in the project reports and
PCU
3.3.3.
document the future field visits in separate reports for each special study
5
55 Harmonise the formats of the field reports in order to: (1) ensure that all desired
PCU-SE &
information is collected; (2) facilitate the final work of synthesis
EE
56 Follow the Zambian approach of village committees in order to apply the principle in other
PCU-SE &
3.3.3.
countries
EE
6
57 Pay a special attention to the selection of staff to be trained according to the pursued
PCU
The number of trained persons should be sufficiently 3.3.4.
objectives
large to ensure that the critical mass of qualified 1
persons is obtained or, even better, exceeded
58 PR 8: Target the training towards the identified needs for the post-project phase
PCU
3.3.4.
1
59 PR 9: Target the equipment of the national structures towards the needs of the
PCU
3.3.4.
monitoring post-project and towards the intercalibration and the exchange of data
2
60 Avoid any double use of equipment and homogenise it in order to facilitate the
PCU
3.3.4.
intercalibration and the exchange of data between the riparian countries
2
61 For the needs for long term management and monitoring, give priority to the
PSC
The establishment of a network supposes that all the 3.3.4.
establishment of a network of the existing institutions (having their reference centre in
institutions of the network are using the same working 2
Bujumbura) rather than creating a completely new
methods and the same quality assurance systems.
No matter what, the definition of supplementary
equipment must be based on a review of the
capacities of the existing institutions and according to
the results of the special studies
62 The Convention and the SAP, being presently prepared, should take into account the
PSC, PCU
3.3.4.
national legal and institutional frameworks and on the other hand the institutional
3
frameworks of each of the countries involved in the Convention and in the SAP
should be harmonised with the new methods for joint management of the Lake
and its basin.
63 The "Convention" should be based on the above mentioned international agreements which
PSC, PCU
3.3.5
have already been or are being signed and/or ratified by the countries of the basin and
particularly on the operational regional agreements. Furthermore, it should be avoided that
the discussions about the Convention get lost in terminology problems. Finally, it is urgent
to produce a preliminary Convention project and to communicate it to the governments
since the SAP is subordinate to the Convention and not the other way round.
Table 8 : Summary of recommendations (cont'd.)
64 Organise as soon as possible an informal meeting between the project supervising
PSC
3.3.5
ministers of the four beneficiary countries (to whom it would be wise to associate Rwanda)
in order to confirm the principle of a regional Convention (including the fishing agreement
under preparation by the LTR) and determine the outlines for its elaboration
65 Confirm the principle of elaborating a SAP but review completely the elaboration process,
PSC, PCU
See also § 3.1.6
3.3.6
especially according to the orientations of the regional Convention (including the
integration of the LTR contributions) and the results of the baseline study and the special
studies.
66 Prolong the project period by approximately one and a half year, postponing the date of
PSC
This prolongation should be made within the limits of
3.3.7
completion to December 31, 2001 instead of July 31, 2000 as originally anticipated
the available budget
67 Submit to the Project Steering Committee a new working plan and a revised budget
PCU
complying with the new deadlines and following the above mentioned recommendations
68 GR 1: Respect the format of the project document, not only in its form but also in its
UNDP, GEF
5.
logic. The executive agents of the GEF (in this case UNDP) should make sure that the
document is realistic and operational
69 GR 2: Communicate the contract documents describing the substance of the project to
UNDP, GEF
5.
all the project parties, particularly to the beneficiary governments
70 GR 3: The monitoring of the implementation is essential for the success of a project.
UNDP, GEF
5.
The contract documents (first of all the Prodoc) should stipulate a number of
objectively verifiable indicators allowing to ensure the progress of the project
71 GR 4: Projects concerning capacity building should rely on a preliminary evaluation:
UNDP, GEF
This evaluation should be included in the Prodoc and 5.
(1) of the mandates of the national institutions; (2) of the local human resources
serve as basis for the mobilisation of national
operators. In case of international call for tenders, the
choice of contractor must take into account their
ability to mobilise around their own expertise the
national institutions and experts capable of taking in
hand the results of the project at its completion.
72 GR 5: Projects concerning institutional creating should include a period for monitoring UNDP, GEF,
5.
of the results, handled by the beneficiary countries and intended to test the structures
Govts.
and the procedures inherited from the project. During this period, the executive agent
from the GEF (in this case UNDP) should continue a reduced monitoring in close
collaboration with the involved governments.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
5. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PROJECT
1. The evaluation mission has tried to deduce the general findings which might have general
applications and first of all be useful for the other (present or future) GEF projects.
2. In the first place, the evaluation mission has noticed and all the consulted parties have
agreed on this point that the origin of certain problems is to be found in the insufficiency of the
project document. The criticised points are of different natures and are reviewed in § 3.1.4. Let us
simplify things by saying that the "good" intentions are not sufficient to make a "good" project
document and that the "set-up" of such a project deserves a very careful examination of every
line of the Prodoc. It is a pity that the deficiencies were not noticed during the instruction of the
document and corrected before the project was adopted.
3. The GEF should ensure that the project formulation respects the norms of the executive
agents (in this case UNDP) and that a description of the activities is elaborated with a logic
scheduling and in sufficient details to make an implementation possible.
General recommendation: It is essential that the Prodoc format is respected, not only in
its form but also in its logic. The executive agents of the GEF (in this case UNDP) should
make sure that the document is realistic and operational.
1. The evaluation mission has also noticed that certain problems can be attributed to the
insufficient communication between the executive agency and the beneficiary countries. The
proposal from the NRI Consortium is very different from the Prodoc which can easily be
explained by the bad quality of the latter. Such differences should have alerted UNDP and
UNOPS and should have given rise to a consultation of the beneficiary countries. As the
proposal of the NRI Consortium is an integrated part of the contract, it should as a minimum
have been communicated to the beneficiary countries in order to allow them to appropriate the
new project formulation.
General recommendation: The contract documents describing the substance of the
project should be communicated to all the parties to the project, particularly to the
beneficiary governments.
244. Another important lesson to draw from this project is that UNOPS as well as UNDP/GEF
and the Project Steering Committee as a whole, suffer from their lack of vigilance at the time
where the project started to drift. The process of elaborating the PAS has been ratified even
though this process (which was adopted to produce some results in spite of the delays of the
special studies ?) was not the one that was envisaged by the Prodoc, it had no scientific
foundation and it was contrary to any logic.
General recommendation: The follow-up of the implementation is essential for the
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
success of a project. The contract documents (first of all the Prodoc) should stipulate a
number of objectively verifiable indicators allowing to make sure that the project is
progressing according to the schedule.
245. Without implicating the procedures for international call for tenders, nor the capacities of
the consulting companies of the developed countries to run a project of this scope, the evaluation
mission deplores that the choice of contractor did not take into account the executive
arrangements with the beneficiary countries. The contractor was chosen on the basis of their
interpretation of the Prodoc without defining the roles of the national institutions and without
specifying the practical details for mobilising the national human resources, nor taking them into
account in the process of going through the tenders. Consequently, the project could not start
immediately after the signature of the contract as the national teams had not yet been formed
around the contractor. It took a long time (in some cases more than two years) to identify and
recruit the national experts that are working on the project today.
246. The evaluation mission is aware of the fact that the doctrine in this field has developed
during the past years and that the same procedures are not applied today concerning the choice of
contractor. Nonetheless, a special attention should be paid to the mobilisation of local resources
when it comes to projects concerning institutional creating and capacity building.
General recommendation: Projects concerning capacity building, like this one, should
rely on a preliminary evaluation:
1. of the mandates of the national institutions;
2. of the local human resources.
The evaluation should be included in the Prodoc and serve as basis for the mobilisation of
national operators.
In case of international call for tenders, the choice of contractor must take into account
its capacities to mobilise around his own expertise the national institutions and experts
who are capable of taking in hand the results of the project at its completion.
247. Finally, in order to avoid any rupture at the end of the project, the evaluation mission finds
that it would be judicious to plan a follow-up phase (for a period at least corresponding to the
project period but handled by the national counterparts) during which the results of the project
could be tested. If such a follow-up procedure is accepted beforehand by the beneficiary
countries, it would be a guarantee for their engagement to implement the project results.
General recommendation: Projects concerning institutional strengthening, like this one,
should include a period for follow-up of the results, handled by the beneficiary countries
and intended to test the structures and the procedures inherited from the project. During
this period, the executive agent from the GEF (in this case UNDP) should continue to
make a reduced monitoring in close collaboration with the involved governments.
ANNEXES
Annex 1 : Terms of Reference
Annex 2 : Itinerary (actual)
Annex 3 : List of interviewed persons
Annex 4 : Summary of field visits
Annex 5 : List of consulted documents
Annex 6 : Genesis of the project
Annexe 7 : Integrated water resources management and planning
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION MISSION
(Revised 30 October, 1998)
RAF/92/G32 - POLLUTION CONTROL AND OTHER MEASURES
TO PROTECT BIODIVERSITY IN LAKE TANGANYIKA
BURUNDI, D.R.CONGO, TANZANIA, ZAMBIA
I
Background
Lake Tanganyika is one of the world's great lakes and it has an important role in the economies of Burundi,
D.R.Congo, Tanzania and Zambia. It possesses the highest biodiversity of any lake on earth. The lake is very
vulnerable to pollution because of its natural characteristics, and there are presently few efforts to conserve its
biodiversity. The most immediate threats to the lake environment and biota are pollution from excess loads of
sediment and nutrients caused by erosion in the watershed, industrial and urban pollution including boat discharges,
and intensive fishing with inappropriate methods. These problems and their effects are increasing, and others such as oil
exploration and transportation on the lake cause concern.
This 5 year project aims to improve understanding of the ecosystem functions and effects of stresses on the lake system;
to take action on all other measures necessary to maintain the health and biodiversity of the ecosystem; and to co-
ordinate the efforts of the four countries to control pollution and to prevent the loss of the exceptional biodiversity of
Lake Tanganyika. The project is implemented by a consortium of consulting firms lead by the Natural Resources
International (UK), which was selected following a process of international pre-qualification and competitive bidding.
NGOs have to be involved, particularly through community education and conservation, and the private sector through
promotion of tourism and the control of industrial pollution. Provision will be made to continue the work of the
project after its life by a regionally co-operating organisation.
The project's five [six24] immediate objectives are:
Establish a regional long-term management program for pollution control, conservation, and maintenance
of biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika.
Formulate of a regional legal framework for cooperation management of the lake environment.
Establish a program of environmental education and training for Lake Tanganyika and its basin.
Establish tested mechanisms for regional co-ordination in conservation management of the Lake Tanganyika
basin.
Undertake some special studies to provide data as inputs to the establishment of a complete strategic plan for
long-term management. They will add to the understanding of the lake as a whole and, in some cases, provide the
baseline and framework for long-term research and monitoring programmes.
+ [Implementation and sustainability of the Lake Tanganyika Strategic Plan and incorporated environmental
management proposals]
The estimated starting date was 1 January 1994, actual was 1 August 1995. This was partly due to civil unrest in the
francophone countries. The generally slow start to implementation was also related to the need to establish or in some
cases introduce for the first time the project to the principal collaborating institutions and other stakeholders in the
region.
Completion date is 31 July 2000. The project duration is 5 years with UNDP/GEF contribution of US$ 10,000.000.
24 The 6th objective was forgotten in the Terms of Reference (Note of the Evaluation Mission)
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
II
Objective and Scope of the Evaluation Mission
2.1Review and assess the appropriateness of the project's concept and design, the project's effectiveness
in realising its five objectives, and the extent to which they have contributed toward the overall development objective.
If deemed necessary, the mission will comment on the relevance of the project objectives and activities and any other
conceptual issue which could improve project execution.
2.2Review and assess the efficiency and adequacy of implementation arrangements and management of the
project
In particular the mission should review the quality and timeliness of inputs and activities by the implementing sub-
contractor, NRI, e.g. responsiveness of project management to changes in the project environment, work plans and
budgets are prepared and followed, etc. The main contact person is the Project's Coordinator, Dr. Andrew Menz,
resident at the project's Headquarter office at Dar-es-Salaam. Contact: Error! Bookmark not defined. Lake
Tanganyika Biodiversity Project, P.O. Box 5956, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Tel: +255 51 118201 & +255 0812
782614 Fax: +255 51 118202 http://www.nri.org/Lake_Tanganyika
The mission should also review the UNOPS execution modality of the project: evaluate UNOPS involvement in the
project (for questions to UNOPS, contact Ms. Karin Svadlenak-Gomez, Project Management Officer, Email: Error!
Bookmark not defined. Tel. (212) 906 6248 Fax. (212) 906 6903 and/or Mr. Ingolf Schuetz-Mueller, Chief,
Division for Environmental Programmes, Email: Error! Bookmark not defined. Tel. (212) 906 6220 Fax (212)
906 6903). The execution modality in terms of effectiveness and impact should be assessed, and the evaluation team
should make suggestions on what is necessary to achieve effective project execution.
2.3Review the results of the project.
List the achievements of the project and assess their effectiveness in solving the perceived problems and limitations;
Examine whether the institutional set-up through the Regional Steering Committee and the National Steering
Committees and Working Groups enhance full involvement of the countries and provide a sense of actual ownership
by the countries (if not, what mechanisms might be used to accomplish this);
Assess whether the project is producing its outputs effectively and efficiently: identify the major factors which have
facilitated or impeded the progress of the project in achieving its desired results;
Assess project impact: Determine the effect of the project on targets groups or institutions: the quality, usefulness
and sustainability of the projects achievements and outputs in terms of improving the participating countries'
capacity for a sustainable management of Lake Tanganyika;
Determine the degree of support given by the riparian Governments in integrating the project objectives and goals
into the national development programmes and other related projects, and how well the project fits into national
development policy;
Assess whether Government inputs in the four countries, at national and local levels, were sufficient and how they
should be improved. The contribution of UNDP country offices to the project should also be reviewed.
2.4Review the special difficulties faced by the project.
Assess the extent to which the political and civil difficulties within and between the countries of the region have
impacted project operations, both in terms of implementation and management of the project, and in terms of project
impact.
Assess the extent to which these difficulties will limit the achievement of the project objectives.
Evaluate the alternative courses of action available including, but not limited to:
-
closing down the project
-
limiting project operations to certain countries
-
continuing as at present.
2.5Review the effectiveness of the indicators put in place by the project, vis-à-vis of the objectives, the outputs
and activities, including objectivity, measurability, methodology of analysis to determine the effect and the
impact of the project, etc.
The mission will make recommendations to improve them if necessary.
2.6
Recommended future directions. (Specified in the Section III below)
III
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on all the above points, the evaluation mission should provide conclusions and recommendations.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
The mission should record, in conclusion, any significant lessons that can be drawn from the experience of the project
and its results, especially anything that has worked well, as well as anything that has worked badly and should be
avoided in the future.
The mission should formulate the recommendations as follows:
3.1 Make general recommendations on the execution of the project and the ways to attain the project objectives
upon completion.
3.2 In accordance with the general recommendations, make specific recommendations on the future course of
intervention of the project.
3.3 Make recommendations on how to strengthen the achievements of the project.
IV
Methodology
The evaluation team members shall familiarize themselves with the project through a review of a number of relevant
documents prior to beginning travel to the region. (For a list of documents that will be distributed to the mission
members prior to the start of the mission, see section VII below.)
In addition to these Terms of Reference, the evaluation team shall use the guidelines provided in the UNDP's
Handbook for Programme Managers: Results-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation in undertaking the evaluation and
writing its evaluation report.
Prior to beginning the mission, the evaluation team shall contact the UNDP GEF Co-ordinator for Biodiversity and
International Waters, Africa, Dr. John Hough, for a pre-mission briefing. Contact: joError! Bookmark not
defined. and Error! Bookmark not defined. Tel. (212) 906 5560 Fax. (212) 906 5974.
This mission will also play a role as a tool to strengthen capacity of the major players of the project, particularly the
national/local institutions. The Project Coordination Unit will ensure that members of the national teams involved in
the project will accompany the mission in each of the countries visited. Permanent consultations will be held with the
national coordinators of said countries. As far as time allows, the mission will give feed-back on its findings and
recommendations to the national project coordinators of each country visited, before departure .
V
Duration, timetable and itinerary
The mission will meet the UNDP country offices, the Government officials in the capitals and will visit the four project
bases in the field as well as the sites of field activities. The mission should also meet with representatives of local
NGOs, the civil society and beneficiaries of the project. The mission will work in close collaboration with the
representative of the sub-contractor NRI and the respective national coordinators in the four countries.
The mission will have a duration of up to 34 working days, including travel time and reporting, based on the
following tentative itinerary (NOTE: this itinerary allows for 6 working days/week with one day allotted for rest on
weekends).
29-30 October 1998
Home-based desk-review of relevant documents (2 working days)
31 October 1998
Home-base - Dar-es-Salaam (1 working day)
31 Oct-6 Nov 98
Dar-es-Salaam (4 working days)
6 November 1998
Dar-es-Salaam-Nairobi (1 working day)
7 November 1998
Nairobi-Bujumbura (1 working day)
7-12 November 1998
Bujumbura (4 working days)
12 November 1998
Bujumbura-Kigoma (by charter flight or car travel, 1 working day)
13-17 November 1998 Kigoma (4 working days)
17-19 November 1998 Kigoma-Mpulungu (by boat Liemba, 1.5 working days)
19-21 November 1998 Mpulungu (2.5 working days)
21-22 November 1998 Mpulungu-Kasama (by project vehicle) + Kasama-Lusaka (1 working day)
23-27 November 1998 Attend TDA meeting in Lusaka as observers and begin report-writing (5 working days)
28 November 1998
Lusaka-Dar-es-Salaam (1 working day)
Dar-es-Salaam home base (evening flight)
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
29 November 1998
Arrive home base
29 Nov-4 Dec. 1998
Finalize evaluation report (2 working days)
Up to 3 additional days for revision after review by UNDP/UNOPS (and possibly a debriefing in New York, if deemed
necessary by UNDP)
NOTE: If possible at time of mission, a brief stop in Kinshasa may be arranged and the itinerary modified
correspondingly. Owing to the regional nature of the project and the difficulty of physical communication within the
region, the itinerary on the whole may be subject to modification.
VI
Reports
The mission is required to discuss and revise the draft evaluation report prior to his departure from the region. It is
recommended that the format of the evaluation mission report follow the UNDP Guidelines for Evaluators.
In addition to addressing all the above-mentioned points, the report should contain the following Annexes:
-
TOR
-
Itinerary (actual)
-
List of persons interviewed
-
Summary of field visits
-
List of documents reviewed
-
Any other relevant material
The final version of the evaluation mission will be submitted to the UNDP/GEF HQ (Dr. John Hough) and UNOPS
(Ms. Karin Svadlenak-Gomez), no later than one week after the end of the field work. The official version of the
report shall be submitted in the English language with an executive summary in French, including the team's
conclusions and recommendations. The report shall be submitted in five hard copies and in electronic format in MS
Word or WordPerfect for Windows.
VII
Documents made available to the evaluation team by UNOPS prior to start of mission
(All in electronic format as Word documents)
-
Project Document
-
UNDP Handbook Results-oriented Monitoring and Evaluation (1997) electronic format
-
Tripartite Review Meeting Report (January 1998)
-
GEF Project Implementation Review 1998
-
Minutes-Steering Committee Meeting 3 (August 1998)
-
Minutes-Technical Advisory Committee Meeting (August 1998)
-
Other Steering Committee meeting reports and relevant documents shall be made available to the evaluation
team by the Project Coordinator.
VIII Composition of the mission
The mission will consist of:
One Environmental Economist, Team Leader. The expert will be familiar with Strategic Environmental
Management Plans, preferably for International Water Projects, Educational Environmental programmes,
Institutional building. 5-10 years of experience required, experience in similar projects in Africa is preferable.
One Ecologist with at least a Post- Graduate Degree in Freshwater Biologist, or Hydrological systems, and familiar
with the ecosystems of the Great Lakes in Africa,. The expert will addressed scientific related issues of the project.
5-10 years of experience.
Both consultants shall be fluent in English and French.
Annex 2: Itinerary (actual)
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
GEC = Gérard Cougny; NHI = Niels Ipsen, ADD = Addis Ababa, NBO = Nairobi
Dates
Places
Observations
Starting
Arriving
Sat31 Oct.
NHI Copenhagen
Flight SR*** via Zurich
GEC Abidjan 20H00
Flight ET960, ET375, KQ480 via ADD, NBO
Sun 01 Nov.
Dar es Salaam
NHI at 09H00 & GEC at 12H45
Mon 02 Nov. to
Project Headquarters
Dar es Salaam
Wed 04 Nov.
Thu 05 Nov.
Dar es Salaam 12H45
Nairobi 14H00
Flight KQ481
Fri 06 Nov
Nairobi 15H00
Bujumbura 15H40
Flight KQ472
Sat 07 Nov. to
+ Visit to Rusizi Nat. Park and Mugere River
Bujumbura
Thu 12 Nov.
(hydrological measurements & sampling)
Fri 13 Nov.
Bujumbura 07H35
Kigoma 09H15
Charter flight (via Kigali)
Sat 14 Nov. to
+ Visit to Gombe Nat. Park and Ujiji
Kigoma
Tue 17 Nov.
(hydrological measurements & sampling)
Wed 18 Nov.
Kigoma 17H30
Boat Liemba
Fri 20 Nov.
Mpulungu 08H00
Fri 20 Nov.
Mpulungu
Sat 21 Nov.
Mpulungu 15H00
Kasama 18H00
By project vehicle
Sun 22 Nov.
Kasama 06H30
Lusaka 17H30
Mon 22 Nov. to
Attending Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Lusaka
Meeting + Debriefing meeting with UNDP +
Debriefing meeting with Zambian Authorities
Fri 27 Nov.
Sat 28 Nov.
Lusaka 10H45
Dar es Salaam 16H30
Flight TC763 via Harare
Sun 29 Nov.
Dar es Salaam 08H00
Kampala 12H15
Flight TC772 via Kilimanjaro and Kigali
Mon 30 Nov. to
Beginning the writing of the evaluation
Kampala
mission report
Fri 04 Dec.
Sat 05 Dec.
Kampala 08H00
Dar es Salaam 09H40
Flight Y2***
+ Debriefing meeting with Dr Menz at 17H00
Sun 06 Dec.
Dar es Salaam
NHI Copenhagen
Flight SR*** via Zurich
Dar es Salaam 06H15
GEC Abidjan 19H00
Flight ET870, ET971 via Addis Ababa
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Annex 3: List of interviewed persons
UNDP/GEF
Dr John HOUGH (by phone & E-mail)
Coordinator for Biodiversity Projects, GEF Unit, Regional Bureau for Africa
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
One, United Nations Plaza, New York NY 10017
Tel. (1-212) 906 5560 Fax. (1-212) 906 5974 ; E-mail: john.hough@undp.org
UNOPS
Ms Karin SVADLENAK-GOMEZ, Project Management Officer (PMO) (by phone & E-mail)
UNOPS 220 East 42 Street, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017
Tel. (1-212) 906 6248; Fax. (212) 906 6903; Email: Error! Bookmark not defined.
M. Pierre JULLIEN, Project Management Officer (PMO)
UNOPS Office in Abidjan
Tel. (225) 21 98 18; Fax. (225) 21 97 98; Email: Error! Bookmark not defined.
RÉPUBLIQUE DU BURUNDI
Autorités gouvernementales
M. Mathias KINEZERO
Chef de Cabinet, Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement
B.P. 631 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 22 06 26 / 49 79; Fax (257) 22 89 02
M. Jean-Berchmans MANIRAZIKA, Coordonnateur National du Projet
Directeur Général de l'Institut National pour l'Environnement et la Conservation de la Nature (INECN)
Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement
Point focal national FEM et PNUE
B.P. 2757 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 23 43 04; E-mail: inecnblt@cbinf.com
M. Salvator RUZIMA
Directeur Général du Développement Communal
Ministère du Développement Communal et de l'Artisanat
B.P. 2740 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 22 45 73; Fax (257) 22 46 78; E-mail: inecnblt@cbinf.com
M. Pierre BAKYEVA
Département de la Planification Urbaine et de l'Habitat
Direction Générale de l'Urbanisme et de l'Habitat, Ministère des Travaux Publics et de l'Equipement
B.P. *** Bujumbura; Tél. (257) ***; Fax (257) ***; E-mail: ***
Bureau Local du PNUD
3, rue du Marché B.P. 1490 Bujumbura
Tél. (257) 22 31 35; Fax (257) 22 58 50
M. Adama TOE, Représentant-Résident-Adjoint; Direct: (257) 22 81 08; E-mail: adama.toe@undp.org
M. Marcellin MOUNDABE, Chargé de Programme (interim de M. Louis NDUIMANA qui suit le projet)
Tél. (257) 22 31 35 poste 147; E-mail: undpbbi@cdinf.com
Bureau du projet à Bujumbura
B.P. 1119 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 21 99 60; Fax (257) 21 99 61
E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined. - Internet: http://www.ltbp.org
Dr Kelly WEST, NRI, Responsable de la Liaison Scientifique Scientific Liaison Officer
Mr Jerod CLABAUGH, Responsable technique
M. Mamert MABONEZA, Assistant Administratif
Mr John DORR, Fishing Practices Special Studies Facilitator
M. Pierre CLAVER, Traducteur
Opérateurs nationaux du projet au Burundi
Direction Générale de la Géologie et des Mines
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Ministère de l'Energie et des Mines
B.P. 745 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 259 09; Fax (257) 22 33 37; E-mail: ***
M. Mathias SEBAHENE (Directeur Général, Coordonnateur SSS au Burundi)
M. Tharcisse SONGORE (Conseiller)
M. Manassé NDUWAYO
M. Gérard NTUNGUMBURANYE (Hydrologue)
Conseiller à l'Institut Géographique du Burundi (IGEBU)
M. Gabriel HAKIZIMANA
Conseiller à l'INECN, Coordonnateur des activités PSS au Burundi
David NAHIMANA
Chimiste, Université du Burundi, Département de Chimie
B.P 2700 Bujumbura
Tel: +257 22 55 56; Fax: +257 22 32 88
M. Evariste NZEYIMANA
Chef du Département de Chimie, Université du Burundi
B.P 2700 Bujumbura
Tel: +257 22 55 56; Fax: +257 22 32 88; E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined.
M. Gaspard NTAKIMAZI
Professeur à l'Université du Burundi, Coordonateur BioSS au Burundi
B.P. *** Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 21 71 18; E-mail: c/o Projet
M. Didace NIMPAGARITSE
Professeur de Droit à l'Université du Burundi
B.P. *** Bujumbura; Tél. (257) ***; Fax (257) ***; E-mail: ***
M. François NKURUNZIZA
Professeur à l'Université du Burundi
B.P. *** Bujumbura; Tél. (257) ***; Fax (257) ***; E-mail: ***
M. Antoine KINYOMVYI
Président de l'Organisation de défense de l'Environnement du Burundi (ODEB)
B.P. 32 Bujumbura; Tél. (257) 21 27 73; Hab. (257) 22 80 55; Fax (257) ***; E-mail: ***
RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
Autorités gouvernementales
M. Mady AMULE
Coordonnateur national
Minsitère de l'Environnement et de la Conservation de la Nature
B.P. *** Kinshasa; Tél. (***) ***; Fax (***) ***; E-mail: ***
Opérateurs nationaux du projet en R.D. Congo
M. Takoy LOMEMA LOSONA, Ingénieur Agronome, Docteur ès-Sciences, Professeur à l'Université de Kinshasa
Président du Rassemblement National des Ecologistes (Ra.Na.D.Ec.)
Vice-Président du Réseau National des ONG du secteur de l'Environnement
B.P. 810 Kinshasa 11; Tél. (243) 21361 & 21362; Fax (243) 12 20617
E-mail: cerdas@kinpost.ccmail.compuserve.com
M. Palata KABUDI
Professeur-Expert, Université de Kinshasa
B.P. *** Kinshasa; Tél. (243) ***; Fax (243) ***; E-mail: ***
M. Baluku BAJOPE
Directeur Scientifique, Centre de Recherches pour les Sciences Naturelles de Lwiro
B.P. *** Bukavu; Tél. (243) ***; Fax (243) ***; E-mail: ***
Scientifiques du Centre de Recherches en Hydrobiologie (CRH) d'Uvira
B.P. 73 Uvira, Sud-Kivu, RD Congo & B.P. 254 Bujumbura, Burundi
Dr NSHOMBO Muderhwa (biologiste, Directeur Général)
MULIMBWA Nsibula (biologiste)
AMUNDALA Shekani (biologiste)
BUDA Patrick (biologiste)
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
BASAONGA Bishobiri (biologiste)
MUZUMANI Risasi (biologiste)
KAKOGOZO Bombi (sédimentologue)
TSHIBANGU Kalala (chimiste)
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Government Authorities
Mr Rawson P. YONAZI
Project National Coordinator
Acting Head of Environmental Management Section, Directorate of Environment
P.O. Box*** Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) 113983; Res: (255-51) 74601 ; E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Mr W.Y. HAULE
Senior Fisheries Officer
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
P.O. Box *** Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) *** Fax: (255-51) *** ; E-mail: ***
Ms Hidaya M.M. FARAJI
Senior Research Officer, Central Water Laboratory, Ministry of Water
P.O. Box *** Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) *** Fax: (255-51) *** ; E-mail: ***
Mr Meraji O.Y. MSUYA
Director of Water Resources, Ministry of Water (Maji)
P.O. Box 35066 Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) 48342/780733/0811-336718; Fax: (255-51) 43793 ; E-mail: dwr-maji@Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Regional and Local Authorities in Kigoma
Mr Clement KANGERO
Acting Regional Natural Resources Officer
P.O. Box 108 Kigoma, Fax : 2330
Mr Y. RWAKANADI
Acting Regional Fisheries Officer
Mr Danny Fanueli MHALU
Regional Agriculture & Livestock Development Officer, Kigoma Region
Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives
P.O. Box 107 Kigoma
Tel. (Res) : +255 0695 2159; Fax: +255 0695 4205; E-mail: ***
Mr Dominique KWEKWE, District Fisheries Officer
P.O. Box 1215 Kigoma, Phone: (255-695) 32 52; Home: (255-695) 49 73
UNDP Field Office
Mr Sylvester SISILA
Assistant Resident Representative (Environment, Natural Resources and Energy)
P.O. Box 9182 Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255 51) 112799/112800-1; Direct: (255 51) 112579; Fax: (255 51) 113272
E-mail: ssisila@undp.raha.com
UNDP-UNOPS Great Lakes Programme
Mr Baboucarr SARR
Liaison Officer
P.O. Box 125 Kigoma
Phone: (255-695) 37 65; Res: (255-695) 41 78; Fax: (255-695) 34 15 c/o WFP
E-mail: baboucarr.sarr@undp.org
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Project Headquarters in Dar es Salaam
Dr Andrew MENZ
Project Coordinator, Natural Resources Institute (NRI)
P.O. Box 5956, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: +255 51 118201 & +255 0812 782614 ; Fax: +255 51 118202E-
mail: ltbpdsm@twiga.comE-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Web: http://www.nri.org/Lake_Tanganyika
+ Administrative staff
Project Office in Kigoma
P.O. Box *** Kigoma; Phone (255) ***; Fax (255) ***
E-mail: *** - Internet: http://www.ltbp.org
Mr James BAHATI, Administrative Assistant
Mr Richard PALEY
Biodiversity Special Studies Facilitator
Dr Francis CHALE
Senior Investigation Researcher for Pollution Special Studies
National project operators in Tanzania
Mr Bartholomew TARIMO
Environment Education Officer
National Environment Management Council (NEMC)
P.O. Box 63154 Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) 111325/34603; Fax: (255-51) 34603
E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined. - Error! Bookmark not defined. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ms Kezia MBWAMBO
MSc. (Analytical chemistry)
Tanzania Bureau of Standards
P.O. Box 9524 Dar es Salaam
Dr Hudson H. NKOTAGU
Senior Lecturer, Applied Geology
Department of Geology, University of Dar es Salaam
P.O. Box 35052 Dar es Salaam
Phone: (255-51) 410013 & 410129; Fax: (255-51) 410078
E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined.hudson@ucc.udsm.ac.tz
Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI)
P.O. Box 90 Kigoma
Phone: (255-695) 29 92 & 36 25; Fax: (255-695) 29 93 ; E-mail: ***
Mr Deonnatus B.R. CHITAMWEBWA, Director
Mr Stanislas MUHOZA
Mr Prosper FILINGE
Mr Omari KASHUSHU
Mr Hamza MABOCHI, Community Development, District Level
P.O. Box *** Kigoma, Phone: (255-695) ***; Fax: (255-695) ***;
T. MPYALIMI, Senior Hydrology Technician
Water Department Kigoma
Maji (Ministry of Water)
LARST (Local Application of Remote Sensing Technology)
National Meteorological Training Centre
P.O. Box 301, Kigoma
Tel: 0695 25 49
Mr Gervas R. SHAYO (Head)
Mr William H. CHILLAMBO
Gombe Stream National Park (TANAPA, Tanzanian National Parks)
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Dattomax G. M. SELLANYIKA, Senior Park Warden (Head)
Matata MUSHI, Park Warden, Anti-poaching/Tourism
Heriel MOLLEL, Park Warden, Community Conservation
P. NTANGA, Park Warden, Park/Village relations and Socio-economics
Jane Goodall Institute, Gombe Research Station
Mr Shadrack M. KAMENYA
REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
Government Authorities
Mr H.G. MASINJA
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources
Ms MKOA, Director of Human Resources
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources
Mr James PHIRI, National Coordinator
Director, Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ)
P.O. Box 35131 Lusaka
Tel. 25 41 30 & 31 ; Fax 25 41 64
Mr Shadreck NSONGELA
Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ)
P.O. Box 35131 Lusaka
Tel. 25 41 30 & 31
Mr Gershwin CHILUKUSHA
Chief Planning Officer, Planning & Information Department
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources
P.O. Box 34011 Lusaka
Tel. 238772 ; Tel./Fax 226182 & 228595 ; E-mail menr@zamnet.zm
Mpulungu Local Authorities
Mr Obino N. KATELE, Council Chairman
Mr E.M.J. BWALYA, Council Secretary
Ms Jennifer C.N. CHEWE, Chief Administrator Officer
Mr Papias MWANSA, Director of Works
Mr Gilbert BWEMBYA, Aq. Council Treasurer
Mr Sebastian MUSHIMBA, Works Foreman
UNDP Field Office
Mr Amos MUCHANGA
Programme Analyst (Environment & Natural Resources)
P.O. Box 31966 Lusaka 10101
Phone: (260-1) 250800; Fax: (260-1) 253805 & 253802
E-mail: amos.muchanga@undp.zm
Project staff in Lusaka
Mr Munshimbwe G. CHITALU
Assistant to the National Coordinator
ECZ/LTBP P.O. Box 35131 Lusaka
Tel. 25 41 30 & 31
Project Office in Mpulungu
P.O. Box 55, Mpulungu
Tel.: 04-455 045 ; 04 455 188, E-mail c/o ltbp@zamnet.zm
Mr Clement ***
Administrative Assistant
Mr Olivier DRIEU
Facilitator Sedimentation Special Studies
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Project National Operators in Zambia
Dr Henry M. SICHINGABULA
Department of Geography, School of natural Sciences, University of Zambia
P.O. Box 32379 Lusaka
Tel. *** ; Fax *** ; E-mail : Hsichingabula@natsci.unza.zm
Mr Kenneth MAZINGALIWA
Fisheries
P.O. Box 350100 Lusaka
Tel. 278250 & 278663
Mr Alfred KABELEKA
Maritime
P.O. Box 50065 Lusaka
Tel. 250716 & 251444
Mr Pola P.L.M. KIMENA
Department of water Affairs
P.O. Box 50288 Lusaka
Tel. 254609
Mr Charles AKASHAMBATWA
WECSZ
P.O. Box 30255 Lusaka
Tel. 254226 & 278444
Mr Allan C. MPHANDE
Food and Drugs
P.O. Box 30138 Lusaka
Tel. 252855/73/75 & 282488
Dr Patrick CHIPUNGU
Demans Ltd
P.O. Box 32750 Lusaka
Tel. 224060
Ms Maureen NSONII
NISIR
P.O. Box *** Lusaka
Tel. 282488
TAFIRI Staff, c/o Project Office, P.O. Box 55 Mpulungu
Tel.: 04-455 045 ; 04 455 188, E-mail c/o ltbp@zamnet.zm
Mr Leonard MWAPE MWABA, Officer in Charge of Pollution & Fishing Practices SS
Mr Robert Sinyinza, Fisheries Research Officer, Sedimentation SS Team Leader
Mr Whiteford CHOURBA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Sedimentation SS
Mr Muntanga Davison SIAPILA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Sedimentation SS
Mr Kennedy KAOMA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Sedimentation SS
Mr Gideon Mwalimu ZULU, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Sedimentation SS
Ms A. BANDA, Librarian, Sedimentation SS
Mr Elias CHIPULU, Aquaculturist, Sedimentation & Environment Education SS
Mr Rueben SHAPOLA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Team Leader Biodiversity SS
Mr Charles LUKWESA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Biodiversity & Pollution SS
Mr Kozam KAWEME, Senior Fisheries Technician, Pollution SS
Mr Joseph CHIMANGA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Pollution & Fishing Practices SS
Mr Isaac ZULU, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Pollution SS
Mr Lawrence MAKASA, Assistant Fisheries Technician, Pollution SS
Department of Water Affairs, Kasama
Tel.: *** ; Fax ***, E-mail ***
Mr Oswald C. MWANZA, Provincial Water Engineer
Mr John C.W. GHAMA, Regional Hydro Officer
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Individuals
Mr Martin PEARCE, former consultant for Environmental Education (Mpulungu)
CONSULTANTS DU CONSORTIUM NRI
Dr Graeme PATTERSON
University of Greenwich
Natural Resources Institute
Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4TB, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1634 883550; Fax: +44 1634 883551
E-mail: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Dr Edward Allison
Lecturer in Natural Resources and Fisheries
School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Tel. +44(0) 1603 593724 & 456161 ; Fax +44(0) 1603 451999 ; e-mail : e.allison@uea.ac.uk
c/o MRAG Ltd, 47 Prince's Gate, London, SW7 2QA, United Kingdom
Tel. +44(0) 171 594 9888 ; Fax +44(0) 171 823 7916 ; email : n.erridge@ic.ac.uk
Project e-mail : lake.tanganyika@nri.org
Mr Nick HODGSON (NRI Consortium)
Lusaka TDA Workshop Facilitator
Mr Jean-Paul LEDENT (NRI Consortium)
Lusaka TDA Workshop Facilitator
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Annex 4: Summary of field visits
Burundi
Places visited
Areas of interest
Project Office in Bujumbura
Laboratories, Library
LTR Project Headquarters in Library
Bujumbura
Rusizi River National Park
Hydrological measurements at the Rusizi river bridge
Mouth of Rusizi River, Protected area, Wetlands
Rumenge River
Sediments sampling
INECN
Water Quality Laboratory
University, Dept. of Chemistry
Water Quality Laboratory
Ministry of Health
Water Quality Laboratory
D.R. Congo
Due to civil unrest in the region, the Evaluation Mission Team could not visit the Congolese bank of the Lake.
Tanzania
Places visited
Areas of interest
Gombe Stream National Park
Hydrological measurements, Sediments sampling, Protected area
Main points:
The park made an agreement with the project in 1996 on providing inputs to
Sedimentation Special Study, Fishing Practices Special Study, Biodiversity
Special Study, Environmental Education, and Socio-economics.
Mr. Dattomax was together with his homologue from Mahale National Park three
months in UK, May June1997 to attend the ICCE Environmental Education
course "Vision to Visuals" concerning production of environmental education
material.
Park staff attended the workshop September 1997 on technical field and laboratory
methods.
BIOSS has not really started - the "Kigoma Problem" of divers.
A socio-ecomic team made fieldwork in 1996 with the attention of Mr. Mtanga -
he has not seen the report yet.
The staff knew about the work on fishing practises led by Beatrice Marwa in
1996-97, but did not really know the contents.
Sample were taken for Pollution SS every month but for which parameters I had
to ask in Kigoma
The hydrology part of Sediment Special Study had been launched and flow
measurements were now ongoing for several months on the Gombe and
Mwamgongo streams, moreover rain gauges had been installed up-stream to
identify local rainfall patterns determining stream flow (Very professional). Water
samples were taken and sent to Dar es Salaam - but the hydrology technician did
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
not know what analyses they performed.
The big deal for the park is to establish an underwater reserve extending the park
into the lake - for conservation purposes, but not least to increase the attraction of
the Park as a whole. The park is already earning some money (2000 visitors/year
paying 100 USD each was mentioned). I seemed clear that this was the driving
force for participating in the project. The Tanapa is currently discussing how the
National Parks can include the offshore zone - the legal matters in this respect
have to be sorted out.
There was a general feeling that the activities of the project were very not
continuous - experts arrived or workshop were held - and then nothing happened
for long time.
LARST, Kigoma
Remote sensing, NOAA images capture and processing
Main points:
The activity started in October 1997, and a station fully equipped for capturing
NOAA data has been installed. The station is run by 5 (shifting) staff members
from National Meteorological Training Centre in Kigoma who have been trained
during a course held by NRI in capturing NOAA data.
The staff demonstrated to the consultant a full cycle of capturing and processing a
NOAA Image. Technically the station works well, but the staff claimed that after
the initial installation and training, the contact with the NRI experts had been
very sparse. They capture the images, send them to England and hear no more.
They moreover claimed that the images would be very useful for local
meteorological purposes, but this was not possible since they had no budget for
storage media. Finally, they could not understand why the station had been
placed at TAFIRI premises far from their training centre resulting in needs for
vehicles and transport costs.
Comments:
The procedures for capturing and processing images are followed mechanically
from written instructions (cookbook). Software routines have been installed for
very easy handling. It is not the impression that the staff fully understands what
they are doing and would be able to solve a problem if it arises. Their
comprehension of the further use of the data is very vague. They also feel
themselves lost regarding technical assistance apart from what they had initially.
Zambia
Places visited
Areas of interest
Fisheries Department Office, Water Quality Laboratory, Sediment Laboratory (grain size analysis)
Mpulungu
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Annex 5: List of consulted documents
DOCUMENTS FROM THE PROJECT
General
- United Nations Development Programme, Global Environment Facility 1992. Pollution Control and Other
Measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika (RAF/92/G32). Project Document. pp. 62. 1994
- World Wide Web Project. pp. 8. 1998
- Project Document Database. 1998
- The Lake Tanganyika Programme and Evolving GEF Operational Strategies - Draft. Jan 1997. N. Hodgson.
English. 33 pages.
- Consultancy and Contribution to the Human Resources Development Plan. Jan 1997., J. Moreau. English. 47
pages.
- LTBP Workplan. January 1998. A. Menz (ed.). English. 6 pages.
- Training Workplan. English. 4 pages.
Baseline Reviews
- Pollution and its Effects on Biodiversity. January 1996. English. 47 pages.
- Legal and Institutional Baseline Study. January 1996. English. 134 pages.
- Biodiversity. January 1996. English. 86 pages.
- Sediment Discharge and Its Consequences. January 1996. English. 109 pages.
- Social, Economic, and Sectoral Features of the Lake Tanganyika Basin. January 1996.
Volume I. Executive Summary, Analysis, and Workplan. English. 34 pages.
Volume II. (Annexes): Detailed Findings. English. 183 pages.
Volume III. Environmental Education. English. 37 pages.
- Executive Summaries. January 1996. English and French.
Progress Reports
- Inception Report January 1997. English. 140 pages.
- 1st Mtg. Steering Committee, Minutes of the Meeting. English & French. 37 pages.
- 2nd Mtg. Steering Committee, Minutes of the Meeting. English. 6 pages.
- 3rd Mtg. Steering Committee
Provisional Agenda
List of Participants
Summary of Progress Jan - Jul 1998
Summary of Planned Activities Aug 1998 - Jan 1999
Minutes of the Meeting
- Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
Provisional Agenda
List of Participants
Minutes of the Meeting
- Tripartite Review, Minutes of the Meeting. English. 6 pages.
- Quarterly Progress Reports
Progress Report I Aug 1995 - Feb 1996. English & French.
Progress Report. Mar 1996 - Aug 1996 incl. in PPER. Sept 1996. English & French.
Progress Report No. 3 Sept 1996 - Nov 1996. English & French.
Progress Report No. 4 Dec 1996 - Feb 1997 English & French. 24 pages.
Progress Report No. 5 Mar 1997 - May 1997. English & French. 22 pages.
Progress Report No. 6 Jun 1997 - Aug 1997. English. 20 pages.
Progress Report No. 7 Aug 1997 - Nov 1997. English. 32 pages.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Progress Report No. 8 Dec 1997 - Feb 1998. English. X pages.
Progress Report No. 9 Mar 1998 - May 1998. English. X pages.
Progress Report No. 10 Jun 1998 - Aug 1998. English. X pages.
- Project Performance Evaluation Review, December 1997. English & French.
Special Studies
- Special Studies Workplans, NRI/MRAG/IFE. English & French. 64 pages.
- Special Study Work Plans (Draft). pp. 70. 1997
Sedimentation Special Study
- Cruise Report for R/V Tanganyika Explorer. Jan - Mar 1997. English. 6 pages.
- Huttula, Timo (Ed.) 1997. Flow, Thermal Regime and Sediment Transport Studies in Lake Tanganyika.
Kuopio University Publications C. Natural and Environmental Sciences, Vol. 73, pp. 173. 1997
- Sedimentation Cruise Report, Jan - Feb 1998. A. Cohen. English & French. 4 pages.
- Sedimentation Special Study Staffing Scehdule 1998. G. Patterson (ed.). English. 4 pages.
- Second Quarterly Report: Progress report of Sediment Study Group in Southern Lake Tanganyika Basin,
Zambia. By Dr. Henry M Sichigabula. April 1998.8 pages.
- Review Report: Archival Review of Available Data for the Sediment Study in the Southern Lake Tanganyika
Basin, Zambia. By Dr. Henry M Sichigabula. April 1998. 17 pages.
- Recherche Bibliographique sur les Données Hydrologiques et Sedimentologiques d'Archives du Bassin du Lac
Tanganyika. Propositions de programmes de mesures. (Premier Rapport Trimestriel). pp. 26. Juin 1998
- Standing Instructions for Field and Laboratory Protocol for the SedSS ream in Mpulungu (First draft) pp. 5.
November 1998
- Dr. Henry M. Sichingabula 1998. Establishment of Hydrometric Stations in the South Lake Tanganyika Basin.
Fourth Quarterly Report. pp. 11. October 1998
- Dr. Henry M. Sichingabula 1998. Inspection of Hydrometric Stations and Discharge and Sediment Monitoring
Activities in the South Lake Tanganyika Basin. Fourth Quarterly Report. pp. 27. November 1998
- E. Nzeyimana, D. Nahimana, W. Baeyens, L. Goyens, N. Brion 1998. Work Programme: "Impact of
Sediments on Nutrient Dynamics in Lake Tanganyika". pp. 5. 1998.
Pollution Special Study
- The TANESCO Power Station and Oil Pollution in Kigoma Bay. By Chris Foxall, 11/2/98. 5 pages.
- Report on Visit to Kigoma for Pollution Special Study by, Francis M. M. Chale. Febuary - April 1998. 8
pages.
Biodiversity Special Study
- A Report on the LTBP Diving Course, Field and Laboratory Methods Training Workshop, and Underwater
Research Methods.4 Aug - 31 Oct 1997. F. Kimambo. English. 5 pages.
- LTBP Standing Instructions for Field Sampling. Assessing Biodiversity and Monitoring Changes in Species
Abundance and Composition. E. Allison ed. Draft document to be finalised by end of 1997.
- Burundi, Quarterly Report: Activity Report, 12/97 - 2/98. By Gaspard Ntakimazi. 11 pages.
- Workplan for BIOSS: a working document. V. Cowan ed. pp. 11. March 1998
- Standing Instructions for BIOSS Field Sampling. Draft for comments 1998. pp. 55. October 1998
- Gaspard Ntakimazi et Félix Nicayenzi 1998. Etude Spéciale sur la Biodiversité (Burundi). Rapport d'activités
(juin-août 1998) et Programme (septembre-novembre 1998). pp. 32. 1998
Socio-economics/Environmental Education Special Study
- Report on Visits to Zambia 7-19 Jul and Tanzania 20-29 Jul 1996. M. Whitehead. English. 14 pages.
- Socio-economic Special Studies in Zambia: Report on Trip 7-25 Jul 1996. M. Aeron-Thomas. English. 33
pages.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- Visits to Burundi, 16-23 Jul, and Tanzania, 20-29 Jul, 1996. J. Quan. English. 18 pages.
- Socio-economic Studies in Tanzania: A Practical Assessment and Draft Workplan. 21 Jul - 9 Aug 1996. M.
Walsh. English. 4 pages.
- Socio-economics and Environmental Education. Working Papers No 1. Dec 1996. English.
- Survey on Fishing Practises and the Related Socio Economic Aspects at Ujiji, Katonga and Kaseke, (Tanzania,
Kigoma Region), 1 - 28 Febuary 1997. By Beatrice N Marwa, M B S Kissaka and O. Kashushu. 14 pages.
- Participatory Rural Appraisal in Mtanga Village, Kigoma District, TZ. Feb 1997. C.M.F. Lwoga. English. 32
pages.
- Exploratory Mission in Rukwa Region, 10-18/6/97. By Laisha Said and Philippe Petit.
- Participatory Rural Appraisal in Kirando Ward, Rukwa Region, Tanzania, September 1997. By C G.
Mung'ong'o. 59 pages.
- Participatory Rural Appraisal in Bulugu Ward, Kigoma Region, Tanzania, 23/9/97 - 31/10/97. By B.D
Tarimo. 11 pages.
- Socio-Economic and Institutional Appraisal of the Malagarasi - Luiche Catchment in Kasulu and Kigoma Rural
Districts, Tanzania. Field report, 8 - 27 Febuary 1998. By Mung'ong'o. 9 pages.
- Village Conservation and Development Committee Performance Review and Stratum Committee Formation
Preparatory Meeting, 1 /4/1998
- Local Stakeholders Workshop Report, 6 - 8 may 1997. By Shadreck Nsongela.
- Socio Economic and Institutional Appraisal of the Mpanda - Sumbawanga catchment in Rukwa region - Field
Trip Proposal, 6 - 24 July 1998. By C G Mung'ong'o and B D Tarimo.
- Priorities for Socio-economic Research and Action in Tanzania: A Strategic Approach. Apr 1997. M. Walsh.
English. 37 pages.
- Social Survey Field Manual: Some Guidance Notes for the Kirando PRA Survey Work. Aug 1997. S. Evision
& C. Mung'ong'o. English. 38 pages.
- Report on Environmental Education Planning Visit to Zambia. 17-26 Aug 1997. P. Vare & S. Nsongela.
English. 23 pages.
Fishing Practices Special Study
- Survey of fishing Practices and the Related Socio-economic Aspects at Ujiji, Katonga, and Kaseke (Tanzania,
Kigoma Region). Feb 1997. B. Marwa, MBS Kissaka, O. Kashushu, C. Mambona. English.
- Fishing Practises Special Studies, Part I. Philippe Petit (Ed.) 1997. Participatory Rural Appraisals in Tanzania,
Mtanga Village - January 1997. March 1997
- Fishing Practises Special Studies, Part II. Philippe Petit (Ed.) 1997. Participatory Rural Appraisals in Zambia,
Kasakalawe, Nsumbu & Kapata villages - February 1997. March 1997
- Fishing Practises Special Studies, Part III. Philippe Petit (Ed.) 1997. Notes on the Biodiversity Impact Score
and Other Features Relevant to LTBP Objectives. March 1997
- Fishing Practises Special Studies, Part IV. Philippe Petit (Ed.) 1997. Appendices and Data from the SS. March
1997
- Environmental Education, Fishing Practices, and Socio-economics. Exploratory Mission in Rukwa Region. Jul
1997. L. Said and P. Petit. English.
- Report of Village Conservation & Development Committees in Zambia. 5 - 28 Feb 1998. Chimanga &
Mugala. 6 pages.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Legal & Institutional Special Study
- Legal and Institutional Arrangements for the Management of Lake and River Basins: Issues to be Covered in a
Treaty and Possible Approaches. English. 41 pages.
- Dispositions Légales et institutionnelles pour la gestion de bassins de lacs et de fleuves: questions à aborder
dans une convention et approches possibles. Français, 53 pages.
- Recommandations de l'Atelier légal et institutionnel concernant le projet de l'accord (Février 1998, Lusaka)
Strategic Action Plan Workshop, Lusaka,
- PBLT, 1998. Plan d'Action Stratégique. Document de briefing pour l'Atelier Régional d'Analyse
Diagnostique Transfrontalière. 23 octobre 1998; Français. pp. 10.
- LTBP, 1998. Strategic Action Plan. Briefing Document for the Regional Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Workshop. 23 October 1998; English. pp. 8.
- PBLT, 1998. Plan d'Action Stratégique. Burundi. Conclusions de la consultation nationale préalable à l'ADT:
Analyse Diagnostique Nationale Examen des Politiques et Stratégies Nationales pour l'Environnement. 8
novembre 1998; Français. pp. 34.
- PBLT, 1998. Plan d'Action Stratégique. Congo. Conclusions de la consultation nationale préalable à l'ADT:
Analyse Diagnostique Nationale Examen des Politiques et Stratégies Nationales. 1er novembre 1998; Français.
pp. 27.
- LTBP, 1998. Strategic Action Plan. Tanzania. Conclusions of the National Consultation Process for the
Strategic Action Plan. 29 October 1998; English. pp. 19 + pp. 1 Problems level 1 + pp. 35 Problems level 2 +
pp. 36 Problems level 3.
- LTBP, 1998. Strategic Planning Process. Proceedings of the National Sectoral Problems Review Workshop.
Lusaka, Zambia; 29th June 3rd July 1998; English. pp. 4.
- LTBP, 1998. Strategic Action Plan. Zambia. Conclusions of the National Consultation Process for the
Strategic Action Plan. 4 September 1998; English. pp. 20 + pp. 1 Problems level 1 + pp. 25 Problems level 2
+ pp. 26 Problems level 3.
- LTBP, PBLT, 1998. Strategic Action Plan. Plan d'Action Stratégique. Regional Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis Workshop. Lusaka, 22-27 Nov. 1998. Overheads, pp. 18.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
- Agence Congolaise de Presse, 1998. Travaux préparatifs sur la biodiversité du Lac Tanganyika. Bulletin
quotidien, journée du 17/07/1998.
- African Great Lakes Working Group, Societas Intern. Limnologiae 1990. The Intern. Symposium on Resources
Use and Conservation of the African Great Lakes, 29 Nov- 2 Dec 1990, Fisheries of the African Great Lakes.
Ocassional Paper, Vol. 3, pp. 133. 1990. Intern. Agricultural Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands Fisheries
and Agriculture Unit.
- African Great Lakes Working Group, Societas Intern. Limnologiae 1990. Report on the Intern. Symposium on
Resources Use and Conservation of the African Great Lakes, 29 Nov- 2 Dec 1990. Occasional Paper, Vol. 2,
pp. 40. January 1990, Intern. Agricult. Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands Fisheries and Agriculture Unit.
- AREC (Antenne pour la renaissance de l'environnement au Congo), 1998. De la biodiversité au Lac
Tanganyika: quelles mesures pour lutter contre la pollution? Info Environnement, No. 35 du 24/07/1998
- Bullock A., 1997. Perspectives on the Hydrology and Water Resources Management of Natural Freshwater
Wetlands and Lake in the Humid Tropics. Hydrology and Water Management in Humid Tropics (Int. Hyd.
Ser.), pp. 273-300. 1997. Bonell, Michael;Hufschmidt, Maynard M.; Gladwell, John S.
- Cohen, Andrew S. (Editor) 1991. Report on the First International Conference on the Conservation and
Biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika, 11-13 March 1991.pp. 128. 1991 The Biodiversity Support Programme
- Cougny G. (1998). Les principes de gestion des ressources en eau et leur mise en application. Conf. Ouest-
Afrixaine sur la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau ; Ouagadougou, 3-5 mars 1998. MEE-Danida, 9 p.
- Dribidu, E., Jønch-Clausen, T., Ipsen, N. 1996. Approaches to Water Action Planning ; Water Resources
Development 12, No. 4, pp. 473-481. 1996. Journals Oxford Ltd.
- Ecologiste (L'), 1998. Lac Tanganyika: Projet d'un plan de gestion régionale. Comment lutter contre la
pollution et préserver la biodiversité. Hebdomadaire No. 123 du 24 au 29/07/1998.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
- GEF (Global Environment Facility), 1998. Bilan global de fonctionnement du FEM (au 5 février 1998). pp.
179.
- GEF (Global Environment Facility), 1998. Valuing the Global Environment; Actions & Investments for a 21st
Century. pp. 162.
- GEF (Global Environment Facility), 1998. Study of GEF project lessons. pp. 15, January 1998.
- GEF (Global Environment Facility), 1998. Notes sur les enseignements du FEM (GEF lessons notes). No. 1,
mars 1998, No. 2 avril 1998, No. 3, juillet 1998.
- Groupement GKW Consult/SGI & SETEMU 1998. Assainissement de la Ville de Bujumbura, Renforcement
Institutionnel, Formation et Aquisition d'Equipement d'Exploitation, Composante 2 : Renforcement de
l'INECN, Rapport Final Provisoire. pp. 17 + Ann. 1998
- Inst. Rech. Agr. Zootechn. CEPL, Katholieke Univ. Loeven, CRRHA 1996. Laboratoire Hydrobiologique,
Projet de la Coopération Belgo-CEPGL IN : 1330512. pp. 78+ann. November 1996. Communauté
Economique des Pays des Grands Lacs/Royaume de la Belgique.
- Institut National pour l'Environnement et la Conservation de la Nature 1998. INECN Bulletin, Vol.2, Avril
1998.
- Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement 1998. Plan d'Action pour l'Environnement au
Burundi (PAE) Projet, Version Finale. pp. 85. 1998. PNUD/FAO
- Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement 1998. Stratégie Nationale de l'Environnement
au Burundi (Projet, Version Finale). pp. 175. April 1998. PNUD/FAO
- Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement 1998. Projet de Loi portant Code de
l'Environnement de la Republique du Burundi (Version Finale). pp. 65. April 1998. PNUD/FAO
- Ntakimazi, Gaspard 1995. Le Rôle des Ecotones Terre/Eau dans la Diversité Biologique et les Ressources du
Lac Tanganyika, Rapport Final. pp. 84. 1995. Projet UNESCO/MAB/DANIDA 510/BDI/40, 1991-1994
- Republic of Zambia, 1990. The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act, 1990. pp. 39.
- République de Côte d'Ivoire, 1998. La lettre du projet IVC/94/G31 "Lutte contre les végétaux aquatiques
envahissant les plans d'eau pour améliorer/restaurer la diversité biologique". Ministère du Logement, du Cadre
de Vie et de l'Environnement. Numéro spécial. mars 1998; pp. 20.
- SADC (Southern Africa Development Community), 1995. Protocol on shared water courses.
- United Nations Development Programme, 1997. Results oriented monitoring and evaluation. A handbook for
programme managers. Office of Evaluation and Strategic Planning. non paginé.
- United Nations. Convention de Ramsar du 2 février 1971 relative aux zones humides d'importance
internationale particulièrement comme habitats des oiseaux d'eau ;
- CEA (Communauté Economique Africaine), 1991. Traité d'Abuja du 3 juin 1991.
- United Nations. Convention cadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques, signée à New York le 9
mai 1992.
- United Nations. Convention de Rio de Janeiro sur la diversité biologique du 5 juin 1992.
- United Nations. Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses (Convention
sur l'utilisation des cours d'eau internationaux à des fins autres que la navigation) adoptée par l'Assemblée
Générale des Nations Unies et ouverte à la signature le 21 mai 1997.
- United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21 (Action 21). Chapitre 18: Protection des ressources en eau douce et de leur
qualité: application d'approches intégrées de la mise en valeur, de la gestion et de l'utilisation des ressources en
eau.
- United Republic of Tanzania, 1983. An Act to provide for the establishment of the National Environment
management Council, to provide for its functions and for other matters related to and incident to the
establishment of that Council, 10th September 1983. pp. 8.
- United Republic of Tanzania 1996. Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) with UNDP for the Period 1997-
2001. November 1996
- United Republic of Tanzania, 1997. National Environmental Policy, December 1997. pp. 41.
- United Republic of Tanzania, 1997. Strategic Plan for 1998-2002. The National Environment management
Council, December 1997. pp. 35.
Annex 6: Genesis of the project
Annex 6.1: Recommendations of the 1989 International Symposium on resource use and conservation of Great African Lakes
Annex 6.2: Recommendations of the 1991 International Conference on the conservation of Lake Tanganyika
Annex 6.3: Project Selection Criteria Reference Sheet, 1992
Annex 6.4: Project brief, 1993
Annex 6.1: Recommendations of the 1989 International Symposium (English)
Annex 6.1: Recommandations du Symposium International de 1989 (Français)
Annex 6.2: Recommendations of the 1991 International Conference
Annex 6.3: Project Selection Criteria Reference Sheet, 1992
Annex 6.4: Project brief, 1993
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Annex 7: Integrated Water Resources Management and Planning
It appears from the section2.5 that the countries in the Southern African region have, set clear
objectives and have agreed on initiatives promoting the principles for sound and sustainable
management of their common water resources. Moreover, a collaborative framework for water
resources management in the region is being institutionalised and consolidated.
At the operational level, however, these good principles need to be translated into concrete
action, which is not a straightforward task. The answer to this is often mentioned to be the
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). However, the concept of IWRM is widely
debated and an unambiguous definition of integrated water resources management does not
currently exist (neither globally nor in the Southern African Region). Hence, the regional and
national institutions must develop their own practises using the collaborative framework emerging
in the region when considering application IWRM. To guide the further work in this process a
number of elements, which have been highlighted in the conceptual discussions on IWRM at the
international level are given below.
General principles
Generally, the IWRM must be considered a set of optional tools dealing with development and
management of water resources within a participatory and integrated approach, which recognises
the guiding principles emerging from the process leading to the UN Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (June 1992). These principles, which have subsequently
been confirmed and elaborated in a number of international fora since Rio, include:
Principle
Consequences
Fresh water is a finite and
What is needed is a holistic approach to water resources management one
vulnerable resource, essential to
which links economic and social development to the protection of natural
sustain life, development and the
ecosystems.
environment
Land and water resources should
Decisions and actions concerning water resources management should be
be managed at the lowest
taken by those who are affected by them. Depending on the nature of the
appropriate levels (= principle of
issues, the forum might be at community level, catchment level, central or
subsidiarity)
decentral administrative levels, international river basin level, etc.
The government has an essential
Legislation, structures and procedures should make up a framework within
role as enabler in a participatory,
which there can be maximum participation, by all interested parties, in the
demand-driven approach to
analysis of problems, the decision-making and the taking of actions.
development
Water should be considered a
To encourage conservation and protection, the true economic value of water
social and economic good, with
resources should always be taken into account when prioritising potential
a value reflecting its most
uses without infringing the basic right of all people to have access to clean
potential use
water at affordable prices.
Water and land use management
The planning of both land and water development projects should take into
should be integrated
account the interrelationships - and the fundamental way in which ecosystems
regulate both water quantity and quality.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Women play a central part in the
Though women are so obviously active in providing and using water, they are
provision, management and
far less involved in its management. Special efforts should be made to facilitate
safeguarding of water
women's effective participation in decision-making forums concerned with water
resources.
The private sector has an
Also, special efforts should be made to sensitise private sector resource managers
important role in water
to the benefits of sound use of water because, collectively, these managers have
management
a significant impact on water resources.
The above mentioned recommendations and principles are very different in nature and should be
considered as internationally agreed guiding principles for sound practises within water resources
management. The concept of Integrated Water Resources Management - in contrast to "traditional"
water resources management - could be considered as a management set-up which requires an
integrated design at the technical/physical level as well as at the planning and management level:
Integration of quantity and quality in water resources management
Water resources management entails two closely related elements: Maintenance of adequate
quantities of water of an adequate quality. Thus, rational water resources management can not be
conducted without paying due attention to water quality aspects. It is important to notice this
integrated relationship between water resources management and water pollution control since the
deterioration of water quality reduces the available quantities of water for purposes with specific
quality requirements.
Integration of land and water
An integrated approach to the management of land and water takes its departure in the physical
phenomenon that the hydrological cycle comprises the transport of water between the
compartments air, soil and surface water courses. As a result, land-use developments influence
the physical distribution of water as well as its quality and must be considered in the overall
planning and management of the water resources. The promotion of catchment and river basin
management is an acknowledgement of this integrated approach since the catchments constitute
distinct hydrological entities. Another aspect is the fact that water is a driving force for all
ecosystems (terrestic as well as aquatic) and their requirements to water quantities and quality
therefore have to be taken into account in the overall allocation and management of available
water resources.
Cross-sectoral integration
The integrated water resources management approach implies that water related developments
within all economic and social sectors should be taken into account in the overall management of
the water resources. This means that the sectoral developments shall be evaluated for possible
impacts on - or requirements to - the water resources and that such evaluations are considered
when designing as well as prioritising development projects. Consequently, the water resources
management system must include cross-sectoral information exchange and coordination
procedures as well as techniques for evaluation of individual project with respect to their
implications for the water resources.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
The principle of seeing water as a social and economic good is essential here. It means that the
economic value of the resources (as defined by the values of its competitive uses) is used to
prioritise the different possible sector developments.
Integration of all stakeholders in the planning and decision process
The involvement of the concerned stakeholders in the management and planning of water
resources is generally recognised as a key element for obtaining a balanced and sustainable
utilisation of water. This implies that the IWRM concept must develop operational participatory
approaches for planning and decision making. An important issue here is to identify and classify
water resources management functions according to their (lowest) appropriate level of
implementation, and accordingly to identify and mobilise the actually concerned parties at these
levels.
Water resources management system and action planning
As IWRM is a concept acknowledging certain principles for sound and sustainable water
exploitation and respecting the necessity for integration of the physical and socio-economic
realities in the planning and management, proper implementation strategies as well as operational
management structures and procedures must be developed to fit the individual requirements of
the countries. Ideally, the development of such management tools in the various countries should
contribute to a common "catalogue" of management options reflecting sound practises which are
applicable in different contexts.
The general IWRM approach recognises that complementary elements of the water resources
management system must be developed and strengthened concurrently to fulfil the overall
objectives. These are:
An enabling environment, which is a framework (of national policies, legislation, regulations
and local by-laws) for encouraging sound management of the water resources and constraining
potentially harmful practices
an institutional framework that allows for close interaction between different (regional,
national, district and community) levels
planning and prioritisation capacities that will enable decision-makers to make choices
between alternative actions based on agreed policies, available resources, technical assessments
and the social and economic consequences
Additionally, the general concept includes some operational considerations. Without infringing
the above mentioned general principles, the process of introducing IWRM should take into
account the need to produce an action framework, which is operationally realistic in the present
country context - and sustainable in the future by:
Fitting proposals to existing realities: The functions, structures, procedures and proposed
actions are pragmatic in as much as they take into account the resource constraints existing in
the country: limited resources, the existing institutional structures, and the management
capacity available for implementation.
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
Designing structures to meet needs as they arise: Structures and procedures should be flexible
enough to meet immediate needs and leave the possibility open for expansion whenever
appropriate.
This implies that pragmatism and flexibility have to be built into the technical/managerial
solutions as well as into the planning process itself. In Uganda, for example, the following
stepwise approach has proved efficient for the action planning process:
1) Identify water resources issues, i.e. mismatches between availability/quality of the water
resources and the quantity/quality requirements;
2) For each issue (or group of issues) define the extent of the problem - local, basin, national,
regional which gives the lowest appropriate level for management (provided that capacity
for regulation exists at that level, see point 5 below);
3) Prioritise the issues according to severeness (necessity of intervention);
4) Identify management functions necessary to solve the problems;
5) Analyse if capacity exists (or can be established with reasonable inputs) with respect to
management functions identified in point 4 for each management levels identified in point 2);
6) Reconsider functions and appropriate levels for management according to the result of point 5
and input requirements
7) Establish a prioritised list of management functions to be realistically implemented in short,
medium and long term (action plan).
Several iterations of the steps 4-6 may be necessary before a final and realistic action plan is
obtained. Moreover, the action plan should be seen as a dynamic instrument, i.e. an ongoing
process with recurrent updates of the whole process to secure that available financial and human
resources are directed towards solving issues from the top end of the priority list. In many
developing countries the approach implies that a number of problems (due to capacity
constraints) are not realistic to solve immediately and have to be included at the medium or long
term level of implementation. Furthermore, it often appears that "the lowest appropriate level" is
not that low because management capacity at local levels are often most limited.
When deciding on which management tools and instruments to apply to improve water resources
management in a given situation, options within the three management system elements mentioned
above: (1) enabling environment, (2) institutional framework, (3) planning and prioritisation. The
choice must take into account the following underlying principles:
Balance the input of resources against the severity of the problem and available resources
Ensure sustainability
Seek win-win solutions (offering maximum gains), whereby environmental as well as other
objectives are met
Balance the input of resources
This principle entails a reasonable input of financial, human or other resources to handle a specific
problem, according to the priority and severity previously assigned to that problem. For instance, if
UNDP/GEF Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (RAF/92/G32)
Burundi, D.R.Congo, Tanzania, Zambia
discharge of wastewater is concentrated at a few locations in a country or basin, leaving most
regions/districts unaffected by wastewater discharge, and if this situation is anticipated to continue,
there would be no need to build technical and administrative capacities to handle this problem in all
regions/districts. Similarly, the treatment requirements and the threshold for the size of activities
requiring a wastewater discharge permit might be more lenient, if only few dischargers exist and the
water recipients show no symptoms of pollution.
Ensure sustainability
This principle has a bearing upon the methods and technical solutions for water pollution control
that should be considered for application. In most developing countries possibilities for operation
and maintenance of advanced technical equipment are very scarce or non-existing. Both among
donors and recipients of projects there has been a tendency to favour quite advanced and sensitive
technical solutions, even in cases where more simple and durable equipment could have solved the
problem. This may have the consequence that entire development programmes fail to be
implemented successfully. Thus, a general rule to be considered in many developing countries is:
"Keep it simple".
Sustainability also entails building on existing structures, where appropriate, instead of building new
structures. Existing institutions or methods have to some extent proven their viability, and allocation
of resources for existing institutions is more likely to be continued than additional resources for new
institutions to be allocated.
Seek win-win solutions
Win-win situations are created by applying instruments that lead to improvement both in water
resources management and in other sectors (e.g., improved health, or improvements in economy).
This means that the difficult balancing of environmental benefits versus other possible drawbacks is
avoided. Economic instruments are often in the win-win category.
Regulatory vs. economic instruments
Compared with economic instruments, the advantages of the regulatory approach to water resources
management is that it offers a reasonable degree of predictability about the control of a given
problem, i.e., it offers control to authorities over which environmental goals can be achieved and
when they can be achieved. A major disadvantage of the regulatory approach is, however, its
inefficiency due to an insufficient capacity for enforcement. Economic instruments have the
advantages of providing incentives to modifying behaviour of water users (or polluters), providing
revenue to finance pollution control activities and being much better suited to handle non-point
sources of pollution. However, an appropriate setting of prices and charges is crucial to the success
of economic instruments but is often difficult to achieve.
On this background, it seems appropriate in most cases to apply a mixture of regulatory and
economic instruments in controlling the use of water resources. In developing countries, where
financial resources and institutional capacity are very limited, the most important criteria for
balancing economic and regulatory instruments should be cost-effectiveness (how to achieve the
objectives at the least possible costs) and administrative feasibility (do the countries have the
necessary capacities to apply the regulations).
Document Outline
- Table of Contents
- List of Acronyms
- List of Tables
- List of Figures
- Foreword
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Table 1
- The Project & Its Development Context
- Figure 1: Characteristics of L. Tanganyika
- Figure 2: Riparian Countires and Towns
- Table 2
- 2.3 Genesis of the Project
- 2.4 Other Relevant Projects
- LTR Second Phase
- Figure 3: LTR Working Plan
- 2.5 The International & Regional Water Management Context
- Findings & Conclusions
- 3.1 Project Concept & Design
- Table 3. Objectives, outputs & activities
- Table 4: Project Framework
- Table 5: Draft Logframe, Phase II
- Table 6: Comparison of Immed. Objectives
- Findings
- Figure 4: GEF LTBP management org.
- Figure 5: Project Organogram
- Figure 6: Recommended Organogram
- Figure 7: Activity Schedule during TDA
- 3.2 Project Implementation
- 3.3 Substantive Results of the Project
- 3.3.1 General Findings
- 3.3.2 Baseline Studies
- 3.3.3 Special Studies
- 3.3.3.1 General Findings
- 3.3.3.2 Sediments
- 3.3.3.3 Pollution
- 3.3.3.4 Biodiversity
- 3.3.3.5 Fishing Practises
- 3.3.3.6 Socio-econimics and Environ. Education
- Table 8: Summary of Recommendations
- 5 Lessons Learned from the Project
- Annexes
- Annex 1: Terms of Reference
- Annex 2: Itinerary (actual)
- Annex 3: List of Interviewed Persons
- Annex 4: Summary of Field Visits
- Annex 5: List of Consulted Documents
- Annex 6: Genesis of the Project
- Annex7: Inegrated Water Resources Management & Planning