CASE STUDY OF: THE EGYPT-UGANDA AQUATIC WEED

CONTROL PROJECT: South-South Cooperation, Capacity Development, and Aid

Effectiveness Outline:1.Context and Background2.Methodology3.The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project4.Key Challenges5.Lessons Leaned

Context and Background• Aquatic weeds in Uganda• Water Hyacinth Problem - its effects on

livelihoods of fishing communities• Assistance to Uganda to address the

Water hyacinth problem and key concerns

• Heavy rains in 1997/98 – the rise in lake level

• The papyrus problem – blockage and flooding

Context and Background• Responses: The period 1989 to 1997 Help form United States, The

Netherlands, Japan, UNDP, and Belgium• Responses: From 1998 to date

Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

METHODOLOGY• Review of relevant literature

Information search • Interviewing key project implementers

We interviewed key people on both sides – Egypt and Uganda. This included people on the Steering Committee, Technical Committee, and The Egyptian Engineering Company.

• Focus group discussion with communities in Kikoge village on Lake Kyoga

The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

• Agreement was signed on 22, March 2008 between Egypt’s Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation and Uganda’s Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

• Project objectives• Project financing• Management of the project

- Steering Committee - Technical Committee

- Egyptian Technical Firm of Engineers• Payments based on submission of details of work

implemented

The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

• Project results• Phase 1 (1999-2007): US$13.9 million• Phase 2 (2008 - 2009): US$4.5 million• Phase 3 (2010 – 2011): US$ 2.0 million• Extensions were at the request of the

Uganda Government

The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

• Project results during phase 1:i. Purchase of mechanical equipment (46

stomachs)ii. Use of geographical information system (GIS)

to determine tracks to be cleared from weeds to solve the problem of blockage on Lake Kyoga

iii. Construction of an outlet (36 Km Long and 100 meters wide)

The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

iv. Cleaning the mouth of Kagera river on Lake Victoria

v. Preparation of training programes for 100 trainees and facilitation of 1200 Ugandan technicians and engineers

• Project results during phase 2: i. 25 villages developed thru strengthening of

rivers/lakes banksii. Gaba fish landing site developediii. 20 water harvesting dams constructed to cater for

domestic and livestock needsiv. Periodic maintenance of lakes and rivers to free

them of aquatic weed

The Egypt-Uganda Aquatic Weed Control Project

• Project results during phase 3: i. Established 10 water harvesting and 5

aquaculture farmsii. Development of 5 villages around the shores of

the great lakesiii. Development of Masese fishing landing siteiv. Maintenance of rivers and lakes to clear them

of the aquatic weed

Key Challenges• Ownership and mutual accountabilityi. The project addressed some critical

development challenges facing the countryii. Uganda Government was involvediii. But implementation raised some doubtsiv. Domestically on the Uganda side the MAIF,

NEMA, and Ministry of Water and Environment had different views about the project

Key ChallengesOwnership:v. On the Egypt side, location of the project in

the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation raised some concerns in some circles in Uganda

vi. Financing of the project was controlled from Cairo.

vii. Uganda national financial systems were not used

viii. Accountability was mainly to Cairo

Key Challenges• Capacity Developmenti. Yes, the project was effective in purchasing of

equipment and involving Ugandans in operation of the equipment

ii. Retention of manpower that operated the machinery proved difficult

iii. Continuity – Exit of knowledgeable politicians, and high level management and technical staff

iv. Machinery was reported to have remained idle despite the fact that the project is on-going

Key Challenges• Aid effectivenessi. The project was effective in addressing flooding

and associated problemsii. Its impact on the welfare of fishing communities

are mixediii. Expectations of communities on the ground were

very different from those of project managersiv. Fishing communities doubt that Uganda has the

capacity to contain such a problem in case it arose again

v. The project stretched to unfamiliar area of development, beyond controlling the aquatic weeds

Lessons Learned• Objectives should be clearly stated – from phase

to phase• Ownership and mutual accountability should be

streamlined as the guiding principle• A capacity development plan must be made; it

should include a strategy of maintaining built capacity (both equipment and human resource)

• Suspicion adversely affects results • Aid effectiveness depends on the extent to

which stated objectives are pursued