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 174
Download document TOR Great Lakes.docx tor English 31.46 KB Posted 115
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.

View report for recommendation
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