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