This is a UNDP/GEF funded East African Cross-border biodiversity project, with an  overall objective to test and demonstrate district level approaches to reducing the rate of biodiversity loss four pairs of cross-border sites of global biodiversity significance. The specific objectives are:

A) Creating an enabling environment in which local communities and district development agencies can work in partnership with national forestry, wildlife and environment agencies on both sides of the borders to promote the sustainable use of biodiversity resources.

B) Balancing resource demand and supply through the development of resource management plans, alternative economic activities, alternative resources and management regimes. Additional benefits will include the mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations into cross-sectoral development planning and decision making systems at local, district and national levels; the creation of an appropriate policy framework for this in all three countries of East Africa, and the establishment of replicable approaches to cross-border conservation activities.



The project is a five-year process funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through UNDP at a total cost of US$ 12.655m for the three countries, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.  In addition, some US$ 1,200,000 is a contribution from the three Governments, all in kind. This contribution includes for example support to office premises, salaries of counterparts in government at central and district levels, and more recently, for example the CFM (Community Forest Management) staff in Uganda who work with the project, have their salaries paid by the Forest Department.

The project document specified that there was a considerable baseline of ongoing support with whom we as a project were working. This included, for example, Netherlands support for Rural Development in Bukoba and Monduli Districts – especially their targeting sustainable livelihoods, through improved agriculture.

Some co-financing contributions were reflected in the project document, particularly input from USAID in Tanzania. However as a GEF process the project components have a mandate to seek further leveraged finance – this is a key question in the annual PIR, (Project Implementation Report), from the project through UNDP to GEF. The rationale is that GEF resources should be seen to be catalytic and innovative and to work with partners to leverage support to biodiversity. Leveraged support could be actions – ie policy change, or leveraged support could be through extra financing or channeling existing financing to project objectives.

Leveraging is defined as gaining more input from others key players well and above what had been planned.


Leveraged Support – the Case of Uganda.

The project has been able to mobilise additional financial input for addressing environmental problems. The resources include such as:

a)      Partner NGOs are paying their staff and providing their equipment.

The project is implementing many of its field activities via partnerships with NGOs and other Organisations. Such partnerships have generated both synergies and collaborative efforts on an “add on” basis, the detail varies with different partners.

The Table below indicates amounts of funds that the project is passing on to partners as well as the estimated leveraging that partners are contributing to project activities.


NGO Name

Involvement *

Leveraging from partners

Dollar involvement from the project

V1 Agroforesty Programme

Rakai – On fasrm tree resources


$ 15,861


Rakai – Nurseries etc


$ 16,666


Karamoja Contract is  being signed

Based on their input



Undertaking activities for Kadam and Napak

Counterpart staff, vehicles, offices and equipment

$ 90,040

Church of Uganda

Proposed partner to implement field activities in Karamoja


$ 6588


Extension service in Rakais

Counterpart staff, vehicles, and offices

$ 42,257

ICR: International Care and Relief: the Agricultural Sector, Water Harvesting & Credit.

LWF: Lutheran World Federation, in Karamoja on Agro-Pastoral Development.

SVI : International Volunteer Service, in Moroto on Agricultural Environment and          Rural Development Programmes.

IRDI: Integrated Rural Development Initiatives: Working on extension work, improved

          cook stoves, and livelihood analysis programmes



b)      Partnership with Research and Government Agencies

This includes support into the Community Forestry programme and working with researchers in the field to address biodiversity problems.




Contribution from Partner ie leveraged inputs

Contribution to Partner from the Project to secure biodiversity action.

Forest Department

Forest management

Staff salaries, Vehicles, Offices and equipment

None directly.


Natural resource management staff training

Staff time, training equipment, and lecture rooms


 Makerere Forestry

As above

As above,  plus vehicles


The project strategy is to ensure sustainability of activities after the project is completed. The approach has been to “hand over” activities as implementation  progresses. Project partners are aware of this strategy and there is close collaboration.  A lot of networking is therefore practiced, including with NGOs.


Experiences from Tanzania


The project has successfully managed to leverage more input from Governments, (National and District) by having more time and resources put into biodiversity conservation issues.  It is evident that, the senior Government officials are now spending more time in activities that have a bearing to biodiversity conservation at key project sites. A few examples include:-

And, leveraged conservation support in the dismissal of officers acting contrary to good governance in forestry

The following are detailed examples of leveraging that imply direct financial input.



This was the first institutional leveraging that we obtained in 1998.  USAID EPIQ programme funded our first study on Articulation of Biodiversity Related Policies at Local Level. The initial input was to a tune of some US$25,000.  The activity was supervised by our project to fit our needs.  We only paid for local facilitation fee.

The output of the study was shared by relevant stakeholders including National partners through workshop outputs.  The report is available.


MBG / NHT Plant collection and species identification

This had been a major output for our baseline data on Biodiversity. The Missouri Botanical Gardens in collaboration with the National Herbarium of Tanzania (based in Arusha at TPRI) has funded the bulk of this professional specie identification activity.

Missouri Botanical Gardens estimate of a minimum of some US$50,000 (approximately 40,000,000/=) input from them, since 1998, on salary, specimen processing and packaging, and identification time.  Our national component incurred 10 million/-.

The activity started as a Tanzania Botanical Training Programme and is now an actual field Botanical collection programme that will feed into the overall biodiversity baseline information and management plans. The activity is ongoing and has recently gained interest from Rhodes University (South Africa) and Kew Gardens in UK.


Through our link with the FAO Country Office in Tanzania, we obtained funding for facilitation of training on Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis as it relates to Biodiversity and Local Indigenous Knowledge Systems. This included a two-week workshop with facilitators from FAO Rome (two), Zimbabwe, Dar-es-Salaam (three) and Tanzania Cooperative College.  All costs for facilitators and the out of pocket allowance for all participants were paid by the FAO "Links Project".

The National Project Components in the three countries paid for full board and local transport.  Participants were drawn from four persons for each site in Tanzania and our key NGO partners and one person from each of the project sites in Kenya and Uganda. There are confirmations of further training of trainers' course to be funded in the same way in the second quarter 2001.  FAO Links have approved an initial US$8,000 input. This increases leveraging between interested partners.  This support is from FAO Rome through the Country FAO Representation in collaboration with the National institution, “Food and Nutrition Centre”.


This was a link to the FAO country office through its Links Programme. It facilitated attendance of a Monduli project partner to Rome who is now the lead person in introducing Market Enterprise Analysis and Development in the district.  It is an ongoing network of some ten developing countries in the world sharing their experiences especially in alternative income generating or poverty reduction activities.

It is expected that this FAO leveraging will keep on increasing.

Further Examples can be found in the PIR Report for Tanzania for mid 2000.


Back to Discussion Notes Page