Final Evaluation of phase 3 on Strengthening Capacities and Knowledge of Civil Society for the Consensual and Sustainable Management of Land and Natural Resources in the Great Lakes Region

Report Cover Image


Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document EU-UN Partnership GL Evaluation Report Final.docx report English 184.39 KB Posted 199
Download document TOR Great Lakes.docx tor English 31.46 KB Posted 138
Title Final Evaluation of phase 3 on Strengthening Capacities and Knowledge of Civil Society for the Consensual and Sustainable Management of Land and Natural Resources in the Great Lakes Region
Atlas Project Number: 69495
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2017, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2015
Planned End Date: 02/2015
Management Response: No
Focus Area:
  • 1. Cross-cutting Development Issue
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 5.6. Mechanisms are enabled for consensus-building around contested priorities, and address specific tensions, through inclusive and peaceful processes
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: European Union
Joint Programme: Yes
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: NGOs, Local Governments, Private Sector, Regional Organizations in the Great Lakes region
  • The budget and time allocated for the projects ($120 000 per project and 12 months) are simply not sufficient to produce a measurable impact on the level of conflict in the GLR.  Note. The time and project budget were set as parameters at the program level, i.e., exogenously from the project perspective.
  • The approximate cause of the absence of peace outcomes has to be seen, however, first and foremost in the context of the fragility of the Mining Consultation Boards – MCB, which are the Conflict Resolution mechanisms established to bring together in face-to-face negotiations the artisanal miners and the private sector (mining license or concession holders). The Private Sector has not yet evidenced a genuine commitment to the MCB process.
  • Project performance was affected otherwise by issues that range from project design as opposed to program design and project implementation.Design issues include problems with the formulation and definition of key results, (outputs, outcomes, and impact), and the result metrics (indicator, baseline and target).  Project outputs and project outcomes are often formulated indistinguishably, with both reading like activity descriptions.
  • The evidence available shows that conflict resolution relating to land and natural resources in the GLR requires a long-term approach. And, Conflict Resolution projects with a small budget and short duration must avoid spreading themselves too thinly. Such projects need to focus on a limited range of mutually reinforcing interventions with a direct bearing on the resolution of the conflict.
  • The projects’ overall effectiveness was circumscribed to the extent that they did not produce tangible peace outcomes during its implementation period, notwithstanding the fact that they are in a position to do so in the not-too-distant future, if provided with additional time and resources.
  • The sustainability of the cooperative-based model for the formalization of artisanal mining is doubtful in its current form, given its inability to improve the socio-economic conditions of artisanal miners.The model is not pro-poor. While it provides a valuable framework for improving security, health, sanitation and taxation, at the current stage, it benefits primarily the mining license holders/investors and not the artisanal miners.
  • There is a general prevalence of gender bias in the artisanal mining sector in the GLR.Women are largely excluded from the sector.There was no evidence of action taken by the projects or the authorities to combat the discrimination.
  • Under-aged boys and girls were observed working in or loitering around some of the mines targeted by the projects. School attendance is seriously hampered in some cases by the flocking of children and young adults to the mines. The AM associations and the district authorities are aware of the problem, but to no effect so far.
  • Coordination and collaboration between the six participating NGOs.  To all intents and purposes, the projects were implemented separately from one another, even in cases where there was scope for collaboration (Burundi).
  • The coordination and collaboration at country level between the Program Management Team on the one hand and the Country Project Teams (EU Delegation and UNDP Representatives) on the other hand was satisfactory overall, with variations from country to country. The collaboration was excellent in Burundi and limited in Uganda.

  • The project objective of building the capacity of civil society organization in the Great Lakes Region was effectively achieved. More than 95% of the outputs scheduled in the project documents were produced, including the outputs related to the building of capacity for the Resolution of Conflict over Land and Natural Resources. The projects were successful also in developing bilateral cooperation arrangements with government departments, national NGOs, academia and the private sector where applicable.
  • The knowledge accumulated through studies and the collection of information, and passed on through training, will continue to be sustainable conflict-resolution assets and potential sources of benefits after the end of the project. In the same vein, the sensitization and mobilization of CSO and other grassroots entities, and the collaborations and partnerships developed with governmental entities, will continue to be sustainable conflict-resolution assets
  • Activities for the mitigation of the environmental impact of mining were undertaken across the board by the projects. The projects developed effective partnerships in this regard with the government agencies and departments, and with Community Based Organizations and Associations working on environmental protection.
  • The projects are likely to produce positive peace outcomes and impact positively on the conflict drivers, provided they (the projects) are afforded additional resources and time to build on the foundations established, in particular the Mining MCB.
  • The evaluator found the operational and financial management of the projects, and the M&E system, to be effective, notwithstanding periodic delays in the release of funds to the implementing NGOs, which caused some time-lags in project implementation.
  • The success thus achieved in building the capacity and/or mobilizing the broad range of key stakeholders in the conflict relating to land and natural resources in the Great Lakes Region makes the achievement of peace outcomes a realistically achievable objective over time.


Design and Management

Corrective actions for future project design and implementation

  • Capacity-building for conflict prevention should not be delinked from the conflict reduction outcomes.  Therefore, the design of projects should clearly show the link between capacity-building and peace outcomes. Such projects require, however, a medium to long term approach and larger funding
  • The focus of projects with limited budget and short timeframe should be on a limited number of mutually reinforcing interventions that contribute directly to Conflict Prevention and Resolution in order to maximize the benefits from the limited budget.

Actions to take in order to reinforce benefits generated by the project

  • provide additional funding to extend the projects for two years in order to enable the consolidation of the gains already made in terms of conflict resolution  capacity and conflict resolution mechanisms including taking action for:
  • Strengthening the analytical capacity of CSOs to understand implications of land and natural resource policies and concession agreements;
  • Establishing network of conflict resolution among NGOs that participated in the current 3rd phase to enable systematic sharing of knowledge and experiences,
  • Enabling the GLR NGO/CSOs to engage with international stakeholders such as the UN Global Compact, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, and regional stakeholders such as the ICGLR, the land Policy Initiative and Africa Mining Vision Secretariat as well as the AU.

Changes to the project strategy, including the indicators and targets in the project log frame

  • The Key Results (outputs, outcomes, impact) should be defined in a manner that clearly articulates and shows the Result Chain, i.e., the logical and hierarchy link between the key results.
  • The Key Results metrics (indicators, baseline and targets) should be defined in a manner that permits ready determination of project performance, i.e., change in indicators over time.
  • Substantial knowledge development and capacity-building activities require medium to long term programming instead of short-term projects.

Additional capacity-building support to civil society in the form of workshops and seminars in the following subject areas :

  • Program and project development, financial management and reporting, RBM and formulation of results chain(s).results
  • Post-conflict Peace and Development programming and program implementation
  • Land and Natural Resources mediation techniques, conflict analysis and several technical subjects such as environmental protection standards, health and safety.





Provide technical support to the governments in the harmonization of the overlapping jurisdictions of government departments and the inconsistent laws and regulations governing the use of land and natural resources, i.e., mining license issuing, environment, wildlife, forestry, protected areas, and land (Case of Uganda).

Provide technical support to the government for the establishment and enforcement of the requirement of environmental and social impact studies as part of the mining license application process

Provide technical support to the government for the development of instruments and the establishment of enforcement mechanisms for the preservation of protected areas,

Provide technical training to the CSO on environmental protection

Provide support for scaling up the Rubaya comprehensive project on ASM and the mitigation of environmental degradation across the GLR.

Land and property rights

The EU-UN partnership should leverage the experience gained though its project in Ituri DRC, and Karamoja Uganda to organize the group of 6 NGO/CSO into a core NGO/CSO network  regarding land and property rights, to be e expanded gradually to include additional GLR NGO/CSO. A request was formulated to that effect by the CSOs at the workshop in Kampala. The CSO view it as critical to create an equivalent of the existing civil society platform on illegal exploitation of minerals in the region for Land Tenure and Property Rights.

The EU-UN partnership should provide additional capacity-building support to the newly created land and property CSO network. The core NGO/CSO should be encouraged to work in collaboration with the Secretariat of the ICGLR to advocate and support the process of domestication of protocols 9 and 10 of the Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region, and the six articles/tools of the Regional Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources (RINR). The ICGLR Ministerial summit is planned for April 2015 and will lead to the development of a national action plan for the domestication of the RNIR.

The EU-UN Partnership should support as a next phase of activity, the Great Lakes national action plan for domestication of the ICGLR protocol on Land and Displacement following the ICGLR Land and Displacement Ministerial Summit.

The EU-UN Partnership program should provide support to the Secretariat of the ICGLR in building technical capacity to address land and natural resources conflict issues, including national ICGLR coordination mechanisms, beginning with the four countries covered by the current project.

The EU-UN Partnership program should provide support to the Governments of the GLR in the development of integrated approaches and strategies regarding land and property rights, leveraging the NGO/CSOs network and the ICGLR Secretariat.


The CSOs should document cases and produce a well-documented report to advocate for a pro-poor regulatory framework.

The EU-UN Partnership should support a regional network of CSO to undertake specific analysis and identify, through members of the partnership, international practices and relevant experiences in ASM formalization using a pro-poor approach. The study should also identify and recommend ways and means of reducing the mining license fees which constitute the greatest barrier to entry into the mining sector. Many artisanal miners would organize themselves into regular mining cooperatives, i.e., cooperatives where members enjoy equal rights and privileges, were it not for exorbitant government license fees.




Regional and ICGLR

Trans-border conflicts

The EU-UN partnership together with WB Great lakes Conflict Facility, and within the framework of the Peace and Security Framework for the region, should encourage CSOs to share experiences, build trans-boundary networks and undertake a trans-boundary conflict analysis study to develop action plans;

The EU-UN partnership should support the ICGLR Secretariat in the organization by GLR CSO of a mapping of regional trans-boundary conflicts;

Similarly, with the discovery of oil and mineral deposits attracting international oil and mining companies to various corners of the GLR, the EU-UN Partnership should support the GLR CSO together with the ICGLR Secretariat to engage with the private sector and develop a training for CSO on how to engage with the private sector and how to build a land and mining coordination group.

In the same vein, the conflict resolution mechanisms (The Mines Consultation Boards-MCB) established with support from the EU-UN partnership 3rd phase should be strengthened, through the development of a legal framework of action granting the MCB a legal status and a legally enforceable mandate.

Cooperation and collaboration with the ICGLR Secretariat;

Provide support for the Domestication of the ICGLR protocols. In this regard, provide support for the organization by the CSO of national information and education campaigns and public mobilization campaigns for the domestication and implementation at the national level of the ICGLR protocols, including the protocol against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources, in particular the six special tools of the  Regional Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Great Lakes Region (RINR)[1], with special emphasis on the Traceability Instruments and Mechanisms, (Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative - EITI). The recent work of the Burundian NGO OLUCOME provides a good source of experience and lessons learned for the development of future initiatives in other countries.

In relation to the coming ICGLR High level Ministerial on land and property rights, the EU-UN support should include:

  • An analysis of the current status of the domestication of the protocol regarding protection of property rights for IDPs and refugees and identifying practical successes and challenges in each Member State to better define a road-map for further support to Member States in their domestication effort;
  • An analysis and lessons  learned from the ICGLR Member States’ experiences and approaches on land management and property rights related to IDPs and Refugees;
  • Advocacy for a renewal by Member States of their commitment to take appropriate measures for the implementation of the international principles contained in the Protocol and to develop cooperation mechanisms to achieve  lasting solutions for the reintegration of IDPs and refugees;
  • Put in place a follow-up and evaluation mechanisms for monitoring progress in the implementation of the protocol. 


Management response not available

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213