Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track

May 2014
Draft Final Report: Mid Term Review for
Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme
NORWEGIAN SUPPORT CODE: MWI-2611-08/024

NIRAS A/S
Aaboulevarden 80
8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Reg. No. 37295728 Denmark
FRI, FIDIC
www.niras.com
P: +45 8732 3232
F: +45 8732 3200
E: niras@niras.dk
D: 87323281
M: 41594719
E: hbp@niras.dk
PROJECT
Mid Term Review for
Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme

CONTENTS
www.niras.com
1 Introduction.........................................................................................7
1.1 Review Purpose ................................................................................... 7
1.2 The Review Team ................................................................................ 7
1.3 Review Methodology ............................................................................ 7
1.4 Constraints and Limitations ................................................................... 8
1.5 Acknowledgement ................................................................................ 9
2 The Programme...................................................................................9
2.1 History of the Programme ..................................................................... 9
2.2 Lake Chilwa Basin.............................................................................. 10
2.3 Beneficiaries ...................................................................................... 10
2.4 Programme Goal and Objectives ......................................................... 11
2.5 Programme Approach......................................................................... 12
2.6 Programme Management ................................................................... 13
2.7 Programme Expenditures ................................................................... 13
2.8 Previous Reviews............................................................................... 14
3 Findings............................................................................................ 15
3.1 Institutional Assessment of LEAD ........................................................ 15
3.1.1 Financial system.................................................................. 16
3.1.2 Financial capability and viability ............................................ 17
3.1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation / QA procedures ........................... 18
3.1.4 HR management ................................................................. 18
3.1.5 Strategic plans and policies .................................................. 18
3.1.6 Office facilities ..................................................................... 18
3.1.7 LEAD Website..................................................................... 18
3.1.8 Operational Capacity ........................................................... 19
3.2 Coordination Among Implementing Partners ........................................ 19
3.3 Studies and Research ........................................................................ 21
3.4 Baseline Studies ................................................................................ 22
3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation................................................................... 22
3.6 Gender .............................................................................................. 23
3.7 Selected Achievements in Relation to Outputs ..................................... 24
3.7.1 Output 1: Increased local capacity ........................................ 24
3.7.2 Output 2: Integrated management plan for LCB developed and
implemented........................................................................ 24
3.7.3 Output 3: Improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity
and resilience ...................................................................... 26
3.7.4 Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased
........................................................................................... 30
4 Review criteria................................................................................... 31
4.1 Relevance ......................................................................................... 31
4.2 Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 32

CONTENTS
www.niras.com
4.3 Efficiency........................................................................................... 32
4.4 Impact ............................................................................................... 33
4.5 Sustainability ..................................................................................... 33
4.6 Risk Management .............................................................................. 34
5 Lesson learned.................................................................................. 37
6 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 38
7 Recommendations ............................................................................ 39
7.1 Recommendation to the Programme ................................................... 39
7.2 Recommendations to LEAD ................................................................ 41
7.3 Recommendations to the RNE ............................................................ 42
8 Annexes............................................................................................ 43
8.1 Annex 1. Terms of Reference.............................................................. 44
8.2 Annex 2. Mission Programme ............................................................. 50
8.3 Annex 3. Persons met ........................................................................ 54
8.4 Annex 4. Institutional Assessment - LEAD ........................................... 57
8.5 Annex 5. Programme Management .................................................... 64
8.6 Annex 6. Staff Overview ..................................................................... 67
8.7 Annex 7. Documents consulted ........................................................... 69
8.8 Annex 8. M&E Framework .................................................................. 71

Mid-term review Lake Chilw a Climate Change Adaptation Programme
1www.niras.com
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BVC Beach Village Committee
CA Conservation Agriculture
CC Climate Change
DADO District Agricultural Development Office/Officer
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DEC District Executive Committee
DESC District Environmental Sub-committee
DF The Development Fund (of Norway)
EPA Extension Planning Area
FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malawi
GPS Geographical Positioning System
HEAL Harmonisation for Enhanced Livelihoods
HH Households
HIV/AIDS Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immuno-defiency Syndrome
LCBCCAP Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme
LEAD Leadership for Environment and Development
LFA Logical Framework Approach/Analysis
MBC Malawi Broadcasting Cooperation
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MFA Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
MK Malawi Kwacha
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action
NEAL Network for Enhanced Livelihoods
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NOK Norwegian Kroner
Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
NRM Natural Resources Management
PMC Project Management Committee
PS Principal Secretary
PSC Project Steering Committee
QA Quality Assurance
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RNE Royal Norwegian Embassy
TA Traditional Authority
TLC Technologies Learning Centre
ToR Terms of Reference
TOT Training of Trainers
USD United States Dollars
WALA Wellness and Agriculture for Life Advancement
WATSAN Water and Sanitation
VNRMC Village Natural Resource Management Committee
WFC World Fish

2www.niras.com
Executive Summary
The Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Malawi is a
five year, 35 million NOK funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
represented by the Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE) in Lilongwe, Malawi. The
programme started in 2010 and will end 31 December 2014.
The Goal of the programme is to improve and sustain livelihoods of the 1.4 mil-
lion people in the Lake Chilwa basin; and the purpose is to develop and imple-
ment a basin-wide climate change adaptation strategy that builds resilience of
people, institutions and natural resources.
The Programme is implemented by a consortium consisting of three partners:
Leadership for Environment and Development in Southern and Eastern Africa
(now “The Registered Trustees of Leadership for Environment and Develop-
ment”, or in short LEAD), the Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) and the
WorldFish Centre (WFC). LEAD is the lead partner of the Consortium.
This report presents the findings from a Mid-Term Review of the programme,
conducted in March-April 2014.
Findings
The consortium partners have, after some years of practicing, a generally well-
functioning coordination and planning process. The Programme do, however, still
lack a Programme Operational Manual, which clearly spells out the roles and
responsibilities and the coordination and cooperation procedures among part-
ners and guide programme implementation.
Programme partners consider that the recent independence of LEAD from the
University of Malawi may smoothen coordination further and speed up certain
processes, including procurement.
Monitoring of the Programme progress is done through the use of the Log Frame
and the corresponding M&E matrix, developed in the beginning of the Pro-
gramme. The monitoring system is elaborate and quite ambitious and include
indicators for both results and impacts, However, proper baseline studies have
not been made and only result indicators have been measured. The system
does, however, provide more information on progress than most projects do.
The Consortium composition, as well as the close linkage to the University pro-
vides an excellent platform for research, studies and involvement of students. A
number of relevant studies have been produced, and the Programme supports
three thesis students and has a number of interns. However, the opportunities
are not yet fully exploited, and many interesting research questions related to the
Programme remain to be addressed.
The interventions in the field are done in close cooperation with the three District
Councils as well as various levels of community-based groups and committees,
all anchored in the national decentralization policy and all important for the cross-

3www.niras.com
sectoral, cross-institutional basin wide approach applied in a relative successful
way by the Programme.
The interventions involve the main economic sectors in the Basin; agriculture,
fisheries, forestry and livestock and focus on diversification and / or improvement
of production and income generating activities through Conservation Agriculture;
Poultry and Pig rearing; Value addition; Improved fish processing and marketing.
Sustainable NRM, including tree-planting is also supported through the Village
Natural Resource Management Committees. Most activities are implemented
through the District Extension workers, with support from the Programme. The
activities are generally very appreciated by the beneficiaries, and in general
found to be well implemented by the Review Team. However the overall scale is
still limited.
The Programme has also supported the establishment of a radio, Chanco Com-
munity Radio. It is a remarkable success, and strongly enhance the cross-basin
dialogue, sharing of information and learning in relation to Programme relevant
issues. Ten community based radio Listeners Clubs has been established
throughout the Basin and they produce local, very context relevant programmes
that are aired by the Radio.
LEAD operated until recently as a Centre within the University of Malawi, but in
February 2014 it registered as an independent Trust in Malawi. The organisation
has physically moved out of the University premises. This is partly a response to
an earlier review, recommending more clear distinction between roles of the
University and LEAD. LEAD operates in a network with LEAD International and
other LEAD Member Programmes, but are financially and legally independent
from those. LEAD has established a Board with 6 members, all Malawians, and
has a constitution approved by the Board. An assessment of LEAD suggest that
the organisation is well functioning, and able to manage a Programme like
LCBCCAP, but that as part of the transition process an institutional strengthening
process should take place.
Conclusions
The Programme is well aligned to national policies and work through permanent,
local/district institutions, favouring long term sustainability. It provides relevant
responses to the situation in the Basin.
The ecosystem-based, basin-wide, cross-sectoral and cross-institutional ap-
proach is complementary to the more narrowly focussed interventions of many
other projects and programmes, and helps to build local capacity as well as the
overall planning and implementation framework for such interventions. This may
become the platform for a future Lake Chilwa trust, authority or similar.
It is a complex programme with many stakeholders and many levels of interven-
tion in a large area. Considering the complexity, the progress of the Programme
is good, but this kind of intervention should be long term, - at least 10, preferably
15 years.
In general terms, the Programme, with some delays and some limitations, is
achieving the results specified in the Logical Framework and the Monitoring and

4www.niras.com
Evaluation (M&E) Framework. However, the impact of the Programme is not
monitored as foreseen in the M&E framework.
The Programme coverage in terms of number of direct beneficiaries is low, and
has so far mainly the character of providing demonstration of technologies and
approaches, but the Programme has created a solid foundation and may be
scaled up in a second phase. Up-scaling in relation to specific field-based activi-
ties (e.g. CA) may however, also be done through support to other organisations.
A number of external and internal challenges has reduced efficiency in Pro-
gramme management and implementation during the first 3-4 years of the pro-
gramme. However, most of those have been appropriately addressed, providing
a better platform for a more efficient programme management system.
The set-up of the Programme, including links to the Policy level through the Pro-
gramme Steering Committee has enabled the Programme to contribute to the
policy debate.
LEAD is a small organisation and is financially very dependent on LCBCCAP.
However, over the years it has shown that it is able to maintain itself and to work
with funding from varying sources. The small organisation is able to act in a flex-
ible manner and rapidly adjust if conditions are changing. LEAD has generally
been able to produce the outputs expected from the organisation and to report
on those in a timely manner. LEAD will be able to head the implementation of a
second phase of the LCBCCAP, but an institutional strengthening process
should be undertaken during the remainder of 2014.
Main Recommendations
Programme Management:
 The partners should develop a programme operational manual describ-
ing the Programme Management (PM) and coordination structure, the
obligations of each of the partners, conditions for transfer of funds and
other aspects of relevance for a well-functioning cooperation.
 The Risk Management Matrix should be updated and continuously moni-
tored at PMC and PSC level.
 Research, monitoring and evaluation should be coordinated by one
strong unit and have qualified and experienced staff.
Research, Studies and M&E
 The Programme should develop a structured research agenda, outlining
important research questions defined by the partners and with direct rel-
evance to the situation in the Basin and the programme Activities.
 The Programme website should be updated, and the planned linkage to
the M&E system, proving transparency in Programme activities and
achievements, should be established.
 The programme needs a review system to quality check studies before
they are published (both technical and editorial checks).
 Impact indicators in the M&E system should be monitored. The process-
es should start with design of an robust methodology resulting in a data

5www.niras.com
collection system that is representative. Good, technically feasible, and
objectively verifiable indicators must be developed and proper base-
line(s) be made.
 The programme activities and logistic provide excellent opportunities for
students – access to fieldwork, many relevant issues to study, excursion
sites. These opportunities should be used more intensively. It may be
consider to have a Small Grant Facility to support students doing smaller
projects as part of their studies. Also, funding for more intern-positions
may be considered.
 Technologies Learning Centre (TLC) should be used much more inten-
sively by university, communities and general public. More technologies
should be on display – and tested by the participating communities.
Programme Implementation
 Chanco Community Radio: The radio is best maintained as a regional
Chilwa Basin Radio (rather than turning it into a national radio station),
providing strong ownership and an excellent tool for basin-wide dialogue
and coordination.
 Fora for cross-sectoral and cross-district exchange of experiences (dis-
trict officers, extension workers) should be held annually.
 Involvement of agriculture, livestock, forestry, environment and NRM
Districts extension workers is necessary, but also the health, education
and gender departments in order to guarantee balanced gender and in-
tra-household food and nutrition security situations.
 Infrastructure: When infrastructure such as the solar dryers and smoking
kilns for fish production is provided, make sure that ownership is always
clear and documented.
 Test plantations at FRIM (Zomba Mountain) and Chancellor College
(Chirunga Forest Reserve): consider the feasibility of applying Conserva-
tion Agriculture rather than traditional agriculture when making agree-
ments with local communities regarding agriculture in the plots.
 To strengthen the gender approach, at thorough assessment of the role
of men and women must be made (should have been made at the be-
ginning of the Programme), with the aim of providing clear directions for
how to make households more resilient. The use of the Household
Economy Approach is a good option.
 Overall the Programme aims to reduce vulnerability and increase food-
security among the population in the Basin. Targeted support to basin-
wide Disaster Risk Management planning may be considered in a sec-
ond phase.
 The Programme adequately addresses flash-flood risks through replant-
ing activities in the upper parts of the watersheds. However, it should be
assessed if other measures are required in the upper watersheds, to
complement tree planting (e.g. check-dams, infiltration ditches or other
watershed management practices).
 Conservation agriculture: Carefully revise the process, minimize or stop
using herbicides (immediate stop to use herbicides banned in Europe
such as Bullet); ensure that if herbicides are used, extension workers
and farmers are well trained and equipped to do so. Consider if hybrid
maize is the right input, considering the dependency on buying seeds

6www.niras.com
that it causes. Ensure robust monitoring and conduct impact studies.
Develop a clear policy on herbicide use.
 In a second phase, Programme capacity (in terms of scale) to imple-
ment activities in the field may be increased. This may be done by hiring
1-3 well qualified field oriented staff, including at least one with a strong
social-science profile who can up-scale the work in cooperation with the
district officers and extension workers. It may also be considered to
make a partnerships with a strong NGOs, but care should be given to
maintain the overall programme approach (including the close coordina-
tion with the Districts and the Extension system).
 During the next phase, discussions on how future basin-wide coordina-
tion should be organized may be facilitated by the Programme, and by
the end of the second phase – or from the beginning of a third phase, a
permanent structure may be in place to take over Programme manage-
ment.
Recommendations regarding LEAD
 LEAD should immediately take contact to the RNE in order to agree on
future financial management procedures considering the change in sta-
tus of LEAD.
 LEAD is in a transition process and a plan for further institutional devel-
opment of the organisation should be made as soon as possible. It
should be considered to contract a short term external consultant to
support this process (may be hired using existing funds available in
LCBCCAP).
 Since the Chancellor College no longer performs internal audits for
LEAD, this role should be taken over by another entity to be identified as
soon as possible.
 Deloitte/RNE should review the draft Finance Manual in order to assess
whether it complies with RNE requirements. And during the first year of
operation as an independent entity, quarterly or bi-annual assessment of
the finance management and reporting should be undertaken by Deloitte
to ensure that – if needed – adjustments are made immediately.
Recommendations to the RNE
 RNE, in cooperation with Deloitte, should meet with LEAD to agree on
financial management procedures considering the change in status of
LEAD.
 Programme should be continued in a phase 2. A programme of this
character needs to be supported for at least 10, preferably 15 years.

7www.niras.com
1 INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a Mid Term Review for the Lake Chilwa Basin Climate
Change Adaptation Programme in Malawi. The 35 million NOK, five year pro-
gramme (2010-2014) is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
represented by the Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE) in Lilongwe, Malawi and
implemented by a consortium of three partners: Leadership for Development and
Environment in Southern and Eastern Africa (now “The Registered Trustees of
Leadership for Environment and Development”, or in short LEAD), the Forest
Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) and the WorldFish Centre (WFC).
1.1 Review Purpose
The Terms of Reference (ToR) annexed to this report (Annex 1) describe the
purpose of the Mid Term Review for Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adapta-
tion Programme (LCBCCAP, or the “Programme”). Overall, the scope is to as-
sess whether the project delivers what it has promised, its achievement of goals,
objectives and expected outputs; to assess the institutional capacity of LEAD;
and to provide recommendations and lessons learned to inform Norway´s deci-
sion making regarding future support to the Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change
Adaptation Programme. The review process involves an assessment according
to standard review Criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and
Sustainability.
The project was signed in December 2009 and was according to the agreement
due to a mid-term review during the second quarter of 2012. Before the review
was carried out a decision was made to merge three livelihoods projects (Malawi
Lake Basin, TLC management for adaptations for climate change and the Lake
Chilwa Basin project) into one harmonised and comprehensive project called
HEAL. The HEAL was expected to start early 2013 and this meant that the Lake
Chilwa Programme had to be terminated prematurely. Consequently an “End-
Review” of the programmes to be merged was undertaken. The actual mid-term
review is conducted as a response to the recommendation by the 2013 review to
conduct a review with more time for field-visits.
1.2 The Review Team
The review team comprised two international consultants:
 Henrik Borgtoft Pedersen, Team Leader and NRM / CC specialist
 Aart van der Heide, Food Security and Livelihood Specialist.
1.3 Review Methodology
The team was assigned 20 work days for each of the consultants. Four days
were used for preparation and document review in home office, 11 days for the
mission to Malawi (including international travel days), and five days to write the
final report in home office.
The mission in Malawi took place from 23 March - 04 April 2014.
During the mission the team has met with relevant stakeholders throughout the
basin including LEAD, WFC and FRIM, University institutions, Chanco Communi-

8www.niras.com
ty Radio, district authorities and technical services of planning, forestry, fisheries,
agriculture, environment, land resources and numerous community based com-
mittees, Radio Listeners Clubs, and groupings of farmers and fish-processing
women. In Lilongwe briefing and debriefing took place at the Royal Norwegian
Embassy (RNE), a meeting was held with the Development Fund and a courtesy
visit was paid to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment (who is
also the Chairperson of the Programme Steering Committee).
The work included review of documents, semi-structured interviews with stake-
holders, and focus group discussions. When possible and relevant, Programme
staff was not involved during interviews in order to facilitate a more open-hearted
discussion. A large number of project interventions in the field were visited (Fig.
1). During most of the programme the two consultants visited the same sites in
order to allow for separate discussions with individuals or sub-groups. However,
the team did split on some days in order to allow time for more discussions in the
home offices of the Programme partners. Observations and information were
documented in writing and through use of voice recorder, camera, and GPS.
The LCBCCAP project management team had prepared a detailed and dense
mission programme that was discussed and adopted on arrival. Annex 2 pro-
vides the final programme for the mission, and Annex 3 provides the List of Peo-
ple Met. Documents consulted are listed in Annex 7.
Fig. 1. Sites visited during fieldw ork in Lake Chilw a Basin, located w ith GPS (in some cases sites
overlap). See Mission Programme in Annex 2. The electronic submission of the report w ill include a
kmz file w hich provides the exact locations in Google Earth.
1.4 Constraints and Limitations
The mayor constraint during the mission was time. The team transferred one
preparation day and added it to the mission days, but even so the large number
of sites in a large geographical area and the numerous stakeholders made it a
challenge to cover it all in a representative way. The Mission programme did not
leave much time for report writing and reflection during the trip, - but all field-sites
were very interesting and added to the overall picture, so none should have been
left out.

9www.niras.com
As for limitations, a review always presents a partial view of the programme un-
der review – and generally the best sites are visited. But this is important, too, - it
means we are shown what the Programme really intends to achieve and the
efforts needed to do it. In general we feel that through the visits and the numer-
ous interviews, meetings and documents revised, we have a good overview of
the programme and its achievements, which allows us to provide a well-founded
review report with solid conclusions and recommendations.
1.5 Acknowledgement
The team wishes to express our gratitude to the programme partners as well as
the numerous stakeholders met during the review. Though we were sometimes
in a hurry and had limited time to fully appreciate the hospitality shown by every-
one we met, we were overwhelmed by their enthusiasm, their willingness to
share information and their way of receiving two strangers in their communities
and offices – a good indicator of the ownership they feel for the Programme in-
terventions. Truly, Malawi is the Warm Heart of Africa, zikomo kwambiri!
2 THE PROGRAMME
2.1 History of the Programme
Ideas for a basin-wide intervention dates back at least to 1995-1996, when the
Lake Chilwa last dried out and exposed the extreme vulnerability of the popula-
tion during such events. In 1997, the lake and surrounding wetlands were de-
clared a Ramsar site, and during the years 1998-2002 Danida (Denmark) sup-
ported a number of interventions related to an integrated, sustainable manage-
ment of the wetland and its resources. However, Danida pulled out in 2002, and
a second phase of the programme was not implemented as initially foreseen.
Since then – and until LCBCCAP started in 2010 – most interventions in the
Basin have been more isolated, addressing specific (but important) issues rather
than applying the holistic, basin-wide, multi-institutional and multi-sectoral ap-
proach now applied by LCBCCAP.
Malawi approved the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for cli-
mate change in 2008. Since there is no general climate change response pro-
gramme with clear guidelines on the implementation of adaptation and mitigating
measures – despite the existence of the NAPA – the LCBCCAP was designed to
provide a good environment to test implementation of the NAPA. There is also
no sentinel site in Malawi where climate change research and implementation of
adaptations are undertaken, and the programme activities in the Basin could
help to fill this gap.
The LCBCCAP is an initiative of a group of Malawian researches working in aca-
demic functions at the University of Malawi in Zomba. Four institutions developed
the joint proposal together in 2009 and submitted it to Norad for funding. The four
institutions were LEAD, at that time based at Chancellor College at the University
of Malawi; Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM), the National Herbarium,
and the WorldFish Centre (WFC). The National Herbarium, however, pulled out
before the project started.

10www.niras.com
2.2 Lake Chilwa Basin
The Lake Chilwa Basin covers parts of the administrative Districts of Machinga,
Zomba and Phalombe. It is a closed (endorheic) basin, with no outlet, where all
rivers and streams flow towards Lake Chilwa (Fig. 2).
The Lake Chilwa Basin (entire catchment) covers an area of app. 8,400 km2, of
which 5,700 km2 are in Malawi and 2,700 km2 in Mozambique. The lake and
wetland may cover as much as 2,400 km2, however there are large fluctuations
in size between years. In in normal years one third is open water, one third is
swamp and marsh, and one third is floodplains (LCBCCAP).
The population in the basin was 1,192,800 in 2008; 1,265,440 in 2010 (when
the Programme started), and is expected to reach 1,470,000 in 2014. The high
population growth ( + 3% per year while the national rate is 2.5%), in an already
densely populated region, adds enormous pressure on the natural resources. In
combination with changes in rainfall patterns (precipitation becoming more errat-
ic) this leads to a strong increase in vulnerability and a precarious food security
situation in the Basin.
Fig. 2. Programme model of the Basin, in w hich the mountains, rivers, w etlands and the lake are
visibly distinguished.
2.3 Beneficiaries
The primary beneficiaries of the project are the 3,262 households within the 10
hotspots selected by the Programme. These households have an average of 5.2
person/household according to WFC. The households are classified according to
levels of vulnerability (see vulnerability map, fig. 3). They are also representing
the various community-based committees, radio listeners clubs and different
groups of farmers and fish processing women.
The secondary group of beneficiaries are the technical staff members of the
district extension workers of agriculture, forestry, and land resources manage-
ment, and the technical services of the three districts involved. These extension
workers are trained with support from the Programme and play an important role

11www.niras.com
in the delivery services and implementation of field activities with the the primary
beneficiaries.
Fig. 3. The map prepared by LCBCCAP show s the different vulnerability gradations and also how
the hotspots are divided w ithin the various levels of vulnerability (from 1=yellow till 1,378=red).
2.4 Programme Goal and Objectives
The Review Team considers the Inception Report from May 2010 with the Re-
vised Log Frame and M&E Matrix as the valid programme document to refer to,
since it includes agreed modifications to the Programme proposal from 2009.
According to the Inception report the Goal of the programme is to improve and
sustain livelihoods of the 1.4 million people in the Lake Chilwa basin; and the

12www.niras.com
purpose is to develop and implement a basin-wide climate change adaptation
strategy that builds resilience of people, institutions and natural resources.
The Inception Report includes 4 specific objectives of the Programme:
1) To strengthen local and district institutions to better manage natural re-
sources and build resilience to climate change;
2) To facilitate and help build cross-basin and cross-sector natural resource
management and planning for climate change throughout the Basin;
3) To improve household and enterprise adaptive capacity in Basin hotspots;
and
4) To mitigate the effects of climate change through improved forest manage-
ment and governance.
The objectives are closely linked and many activities supports several objectives:
e.g. Chanco Community Radio supports all four objectives, as does the
strengthening of local institutions; support to improved smoking kilns increases
income (obj. 3) but at the same time saves fuel-wood (Obj. 4).
These objectives are to be achieved through the five programme outputs:
 Output 1: Capacity of local and district institutions to plan, implement and
monitor integrated climate change adaptations increased.
 Output 2: Integrated management plan for Lake Chilwa basin hotspots
developed and implemented
 Output 3: Vulnerability of Basin households reduced through improved
and diversified livelihoods and natural resource management
 Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased.
 Output 5: Monitoring and Evaluation system developed and implement-
ed.
2.5 Programme Approach
The Programme has adapted the Ecosystem Approach for a holistic, basin-wide
intervention, involving a large number of stakeholders. A key aspect of the ap-
proach is to implement the Programme through the decentralized structures
within the District Assemblies of the three districts in the Basin. Those structures,
which are anchored in the national decentralization policy, include the District
Assemblies, District Environmental Sub-committees (DESC), Village Natural
Recourse Management Committees (VNRMC), Beach Village Committees
(BVC) and Traditional Authorities (TA). Through involvement and empowerment
of the local structures, the Programme expects to facilitate sustainable and cli-
mate resilient Natural Resource Management (NRM) in the Basin.
The Programme also cooperates with research institutions and intends to facili-
tate research and studies at different levels, in order to, supported by a strong
research-oriented monitoring system, identify and document best practices.
Through a participatory process within each District the Programme has– select-
ed 10 hotspot areas where field level interventions are focussed. The hotspots
represent a number of different ecological zones with different degree of vulner-
ability, and together they reflect the numerous and diverse challenges facing

13www.niras.com
people and environment in the Basin. In this way, the interventions, if well moni-
tored and documented, will produce important lessons learned for the develop-
ment in the Basin and elsewhere, and the hotspots can serve as both demon-
stration areas and as centres from where best practices can spread. Fig. 3
shows location of the hotspots and associated vulnerabilities.
The large and diverse group of stakeholders, the extensive geographical cover-
age and the focus on hotspots located throughout the basin rather than in a more
concentrated area are thus fundamental components of the approach. Com-
pared to other programmes / projects, which may be operating in a smaller area,
with more focused interventions (e.g. “only” Conservation Agriculture in a deter-
mined area), and with external staff hired specifically for that purpose, the
LCBCCAP approach is complex. However, the very idea of the Programme is to
facilitate a cross-basin ecosystem-based approach, involving empowerment and
capacity building of stakeholders at different levels, and to work through existing
structures. By doing so, the Programme helps to build or strengthen an important
framework for all the more narrowly focussed interventions done by other pro-
grammes/projects. Thus, the approach is complementary to other approaches
and fills an important gap, as the Review Team sees it.
2.6 Programme Management
The consortium implementing the LCBCCAP consists of three entities: LEAD,
WFC and FRIM with LEAD as the overall responsible for the Programme. Initially
a fourth partner was considered (National Herbarium) and also it was foreseen
that WFC should be the lead organisation. However, the National Herbarium
never entered, and during the inception phase it was decided that the Malawi
based LEAD, rather than the international, Malaysia-based WFC should lead,
and budgets were re-arranged accordingly.
The overall set-up consists of a Project Management team comprising the
heads of the three partners and led by the Programme Coordinator (Prof. Sosten
Chiotha), a Programme Manager responsible for day to day PM activities (Wel-
ton Phalira, based at LEAD), a Project Management Committee (PMC), and a
Programme Steering Committee (PSC). See Annex 5 for composition and man-
date of the PMC and the PSC.
The total staff involved (excluding interns at the Chanco Community Radio) from
the three partners are 42. Of those 24 are professionals, 11 are technical and 7
are administration and support. The distribution on institutions: LEAD: 13, FRIM
21, WFC 8. Eighteen are funded through LCBCCAP, 24 (including all from
FRIM) are funded from other sources, principally Government. See Annex 6 for
details on staff.
2.7 Programme Expenditures
The overall funding for the 5-year programme is 35 Million NOK. Programme
expenditures figures in % of budget are: for 2013 (78%), for 2012 (81%), for
2011 (87%), and for 2010 (53%). Total expenditure till end of 2013 is
71%(figures based on information from the LEAD Finance and Administration
Unit). Considering the low spending the first year and the delays caused by

14www.niras.com
partly external factors , spending shows a medium – high capacity to implement
the budget. Since many bottleneck/barriers in the financial management have
been reduced or eliminated, efficiency in a second phase is likely to improve.
Since almost 30 % of the total budget remains for 2014, the Programme will be
able to extend well into 2015 in case additional time is needed for preparation
and appraisal of a new Phase 2 Programme Document
2.8 Previous Reviews
A technical review of the programme was conducted in February 2013 by
ORGUT Consulting AG as part of the preparation of the HEAL Programme. The
main recommendations made by the review are inserted below. Some mainly
refer to the expected new context, however, most were also relevant for
LCBCCAP in the actual scenario, where the programmes did not merge. Most
issues are also touch-upon in this report, but for clarity short comments/status in
relation to each point are provided in italics.
Recommendations to LCBCCAP from the 2013 review
 Focus on LCBCCAP strengths in a future HEAL programme. These are
in particular the radio listening clubs and the prospects for radio and TV
station, the M&E system and the programme ability to contribute
knowledge through research and studies. The Radio (Chanco Community
Radio, now established)and the M&E systemare also very important
components in the actual programme, and should be so in a second
phase.
 Further develop the M&E system. Still relevant: As it will be discussed
in this report, the M&E systemis well developed,but not functioning as
planned, especially since impactsare not monitored and the envisioned
transparency (link to website) has not been implemented. Focusshould
be maintained on this.
 Enhance quality of field activity. Engage a competent NGO if ambitions
on field activity are to be retained. While the quality of field activities in
many cases are good, the scale is still limited. This should be addressed
in a second phase,as discussed in this report.
 Analyse critically the capital input requirement and risks associated with
an approach to Conservation Agriculture which is based on high levels
of purchased inputs, like hybrid seed and agro-chemicals. Appropriate
steps to address this issue have not yet been taken, and this review re-
peats and further elaborates on this.
 Embark on a more concentrated approach in the field. The present re-
view considers the basin-wide, holistic an important characteristic of
this programme, and do not recommend a more concentrated approach
in geographical northematic terms.
 Possibly reduce emphasis on areas far from the lake as interventions
there may not impact much on the lake. While the lake is important to
the livelihood of many people in the Basin, the Programme goal is to
address livelihood aspects in the entire basin, and the actual review
finds that also areasdistant to the lake – still within the basin – should
be addressed.
 Streamline financial management among partners. Still highly relevant,
but important improvementshave been made.

15www.niras.com
 Include in reports also how the Programme relates to other donor funded
activities. Clarify also if other activities funded by RNE should be
merged into the reporting on LCBCCAP. Remains relevant, the role of
the programme – as an overarching “umbrella” programme means that
it is highly relevant to coordinate with other donoractivities in the area.
Cooperation with actual or future RNE funded activities may help to ex-
tend the scale of the field activities.
Recommendations to RNE in relation to LCBCCAP fromthe 2013 review:
 Review contractual arrangements. The Team’s view is that a condition
for the progression into HEAL is that the current complex institutional
arrangements be streamlined. Though the HEAL processhasbeen can-
celled, it is still relevant to look at the institutional setting. The recent
change in statusof LEAD (now an independent legal entity) requires
new arrangements even within the present phase. xx
 A competent NGO will have to be engaged if ambitions on field activity
are to be retained. Measures to upgrade/scale field activities are still
relevant and also addressed in this Review
 Carry out an additional evaluation of the programme that has better allo-
cation of time for field work to better document quality and quantity of
activity at field level. The actual reviewhas been implemented in re-
sponse to this recommendation.
 Conduct a focussed audit to clarify routines and timeliness of disburse-
ments among the current LCBCCAP partners. Other specific details for
such audit to look into include the internal financial reporting between
the current LCBCCAP partners. While internal coordination,including
timeliness of disbursement has improved as discussed in this review, fo-
cus on improving the cooperation should be maintained. No formal pro-
cedures forcooperation with partnershasyet been established. The new
status of LEAD may smoothen procurement and other procedures. An in-
ternal audit commissioned by the RNE found provided an unqualified
audit report.
 Generally as a donor, demand better analysis in the early programme
stages to avoid too significant deviation between originally proposed
plans and revised plans. While the Inception Report with the Log-frame
and M&E framework (in this review considered the main Programme
Document), differs in a numberof ways fromthe original Proposal, this
is a normal process and the need for adjustments will always exist. It is,
however,important that updates – if/when made are approved by the
Programme Steering Committee and the RNE. This is still relevant.
 There should be one version of the fundamental documents that is valid
and used for purposes and evaluations and other follow up. See above.
3 FINDINGS
3.1 Institutional Assessment of LEAD
This section provides an overview or findings related to LEAD and its intuitional
situation and capacity. The full assessment produced as part of this review is
provided in Annex 4.

16www.niras.com
LEAD is legally registered as an independent trust in Malawi under the name of
“The Registered Trustee of Leadership for Environment and Development” ac-
cording to Certificate of Incorporation dated 02 February 2014.
In late 2013 LEAD moved out of the office at Chancellor College of the University
of Malawi into a rented office in Zomba. This process towards independence
from the university structure is partly a response to the 2013 review recommend-
ing a more clear definition of roles between the University and LEAD. Before
LEAD was organized as a centre within the University of Malawi/ Chancellor
College through endorsement by the University Senate.
LEAD expects to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Chancellor
College very soon, outlining the conditions for the new relationship. According to
LEAD management, this MoU may include some level of support/control with
financial management or support with large procurements, if so required by the
RNE.
LEAD operates in a network with LEAD International and other LEAD Member
Programmes, but are financially and legally independent from those. There is no
sharing of manpower, administrative support, or transfer of funds between LEAD
in Malawi and LEAD International – or between Member Programmes, unless
when specific agreement about specific projects are made.
LEAD has established a Board with 6 members, all Malawians, and has a consti-
tution approved by the Board.
LEAD has a staff of 8 professionals and 6 Administrative support staff plus a
number of interns. Approximately half part of the staff is financed through
LCBCCAP.
3.1.1 Financial system
Until recently, financial management has followed the Chancellor College proce-
dures, and procurement was done through the Chancellor College, following the
Public Procurement Act 2003. However, since registering as an independent
trust in February, LEAD has done its own procurement (only minor procurements
have taken pace so far). LEAD has prepared a draft Finance Manual which is
expected to be approved on a board meeting in May 2014. Until the manual is
approved by the Board, LEAD uses a blend of the management procedures from
Chancellor College, LEAD International – and the draft manual.
The Finance and Administration unit is well structured, with a head and two as-
sistants. The unit has demonstrated its ability to handle the LCBCCAP accounts
as well as the general financial management of LEAD. Also, the Review team
considers that LEAD unit will be able to undertake procurement on its own
through the internal procurement committee. The internal Audit unit of Chancellor
College has previously undertaken internal audits of LEAD as outlined in the
Inception report. However, after separating from the university, this function
needs to be filled by another entity to be identified by LEAD and approved by the
RNE.

17www.niras.com
Each member of the LCBCCAP consortium, including LEAD, has its own pro-
curement committee. In LEAD the four members of the committee evaluate doc-
uments for supply of goods/services and make recommendations for the Pro-
gramme Manager to endorse, to be finally approved by the Programme Coordi-
nator.
LEAD is audited by AMG Global Audit Company (since 2009). Reports from
2011-12-13 have only raised minor issues in relation to the financial manage-
ment at LEAD, and those issues have been addressed. Overall, the financial
management system is well functioning, but LEAD urgently needs to formalise all
procedures in the new institutional setting and re-establish an internal audit func-
tion.
An independent audit commissioned by the RNE and implemented by Deloitte
provided an unqualified (i.e. “clean” ) audit report.
3.1.2 Financial capability and viability
Funding for LCBCCAP is an important source of income for LEAD. The Pro-
gramme funds represent between half and two-thirds of the annual turnover (only
the LEAD share of the LCBCCAP funding is considered), and more than half the
staff is financed through the programme. The low disbursement for LCBCCAP in
2012 seen in the Table is partly due to a bridging period during the HEAL prepa-
ration process.
2010 2011 2012
LEAD activitiesexcept
LCBCAP (USD) 422,000.00 678,000.00 602,000.00
LCBCCAP (USD) 1,209,000.00 1,260,000.00 688,000.00
Total (USD) 1,631,000.00 1,938,000.00 1,290,000.00
LCBCCAPin% of total 74 65 53
Sources of funding for LEAD. Source: LEAD Finance and Administration Unit.
The large dependency on one or a few sources of funding exposes the organisa-
tion to the risk of suddenly being almost without funding. However, since its fi-
nancial independence from LEAD International in 2003, LEAD has been able to
continue operating with funds from different sources and has proven its viability
in spite of limited income diversification.
For the LCBCCAP, spending until end of December 2013 accounts for 71% of
the total budget for the 5 years according to figures provided by the Finance and
Administration Unit of LEAD. While spending may be below the expected spend-
ing at this point, it is still acceptable considering a slow start, slow procurement
processes through the university, problems with transference of funds to FRIM
(not caused by LEAD) and the reduction in spending the programme had during
the HEAL preparation process.
Overall, LEAD has shown capability in terms of budget implementation and via-
bility in terms of adjusting to the actual situation.

18www.niras.com
3.1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation / QA procedures
LEAD does not have an overall system to monitor performance of the organisa-
tion, but uses project-specific monitoring in relation to each project / programme
they are involved in (see section on monitoring for information on the LCBCCAP
monitoring system). There are no written Quality Assurance procedures for the
organisation to be followed in project management and delivery.
3.1.4 HR management
Staff members are hired through competitive processes (announcement in the
press, interviews, selection based on merits). They are employed on fixed-term
contracts, generally for one or two years, renewable if funds are available. Annu-
ally an open appraisal is done with each employee by the LEAD Director, but no
formal staff evaluation system is in place. Work descriptions for the different
positions are included in the ToR used when hiring the staff members, but no
updated overview / compilation of work descriptions exists. No formal staff de-
velopment policy or procedures are used, but staff members frequently partici-
pate in seminars, conferences etc. The staff is dedicated and competent and all
the professional staff have degrees at least on master level.
3.1.5 Strategic plans and policies
Strategic Plans for LEAD 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 have been developed.
The Constitution of LEAD establishes the objectives/ mission of the organisation.
The organisation does not have a Business Integrity Management statement or
manual.
In relation to LCBCCAP, annual plans, budgets and implementation strategy have been
prepared for 2011 and 2012 and uploaded to the Programme web-site. Less elaborate
budgets and plans (excel sheets) have been prepared for 2013 and 2014, but not made
available on the website. According to the LCBCCAP, the 2013 and 2014 plans and
budget still await the approval of the RNE and this is given as the reason for not
uploading the plans to the website.Overall, the Programme is guided by the Log-
frame for the Programme inserted in the 2010 Inception Report.
3.1.6 Office facilities
LEAD is now operating from rented office facilities in Zomba city. The facilities
consist of a main building, app. 250 m2 with 5 offices, board room, 2 restrooms,
reception, small kitchen and a storeroom. An annex of app. 30 m2 holds three
offices. The area has a large garden and is surrounded by a wall. They have
security arrangements (guard) at the gate. Offices are well equipped, all staff
members have computers, there is access to copy / print facilities. Internet is
fluctuating in strength, but is generally accessible.
3.1.7 LEAD Website
The website (www.leadsea.mw ) is potentially an important tool for sharing in-
formation, and for transparency and accountability. The LEAD website, however,
has not been updated for several years, and many links to documents are miss-
ing or misleading.

19www.niras.com
3.1.8 Operational Capacity
LEAD has, in general terms, been able to produce the outputs expected from
the organisation and to report on those (financially and technically) in a timely
manner. The small organisation is able to act in a flexible manner and rapidly
adjust if conditions are changing. They have shown that they are able to head
the Programme interventions in the Basin in a competent way, overcoming many
of the challenges associated with a complex programme with many stakeholders
in a large geographical area. There is, however a need for further institutional
development during the present transition phase (moving from the University of
Malawi to an independent Trust).
3.2 Coordination Among Implementing Partners
Coordination and planning are done within the formal set-up described in the
Programme Document and adjusted in the Inception report. The set-up includes
a Programme Manager based at LEAD, the PMC and the PSC. In addition, in-
ternal coordination activities take place on different levels, not outlined in any
document, but with some degree of consistency. Those levels include:
 Management group: Directors from the three partners meet regularly (4-
5 times per month according to the Programme Coordinator) and corre-
spond frequently by e-mail. Overall planning issues are dealt with, how-
ever formal agenda and minutes from those meetings are generally not
produced and shared among staff members.
 Accountants and technical staff from the three partners meet frequently
in order to prepare quarterly reports. The reports are presented to the
Programme managers before taken to PMC. After approval in the PMC
they are submitted to the RNE.
At the quarterly PMC meetings the members review reports and programme
activities, and planning is done for the next quarter. The PMC include Directors
of Planning from the Districts and is an important fora for coordination of activi-
ties in the Basin. Responsibilities of the PMC are well defined (See Annex 5).
The PSC meets biannually in order to provide overall policy guidance and ap-
prove work plans, budgets and work plans. Responsibilities of the PSC are well
defined (See Annex 5). PSC plays an active role in policy development and is
able to feed lessons learned from the Programme into the national policy level.
Overall, the different levels of coordination are working after several years of
practising, and they provide room for adequate and relatively flexible coordina-
tion within and between the levels. However, no manual or guidelines for coordi-
nation, planning and implementation have been produced (except for the de-
scription of roles and responsibilities of the PMC and the PSC). Lack of clear
guidance governing the cooperation appears to have caused some friction
among partners and delays in transfer of funds and project implementation. One
example is the use of delay of transfers from LEAD to partners when progress
reporting has not been timely, - partners have not always agreed to this ap-
proach.

20www.niras.com
Also, lack of or limited use of agendas and minutes from the coordination on
managers level and accountant/technicians meetings opens up for different in-
terpretations of agreements made during the meetings. More standardized pro-
cedures for cooperation as well as use of agenda/minutes from meetings be-
tween partners may ensure a more smooth coordination.
Other problems or bottleneck in PM, coordination and implementation that have
influenced programme effectiveness and efficiency negatively, include:
 Funds for FRIM went into a pool-account in the Ministry (standard gov-
ernment procedure), while auditors required a programme-specific ac-
count. Transfer to FRIM was stopped for some time, but eventually the
issue was solved and FRIM now has a special account for Programme
funds.
 Initially, WFC also used a pool account, - this has also been resolved,
but some delays in finance reporting and during audits still happen, be-
cause the head office is in Malaysia and this sometimes give time-lag in
communication, and also exchange rate fluctuations have delayed the
reconciliation of financial statements. These are minor issues, but some-
times cause delays.
 While involved staff from WFC and LEAD receive salaries from the
LCBCCAP, the government employees from FRIM are not allowed to
have additional benefits (topping-up of salary). This is government policy
and must be respected, but initially caused some complaints from FRIM
and slowed down certain activities in the beginning, partly due to limited
incentives provided, partly due to the fact that the staff was already in-
volved in many other activities (and additional staff was not hired for the
programme). Lunch allowances, however, may be provided. The solu-
tion is outside Programme control, and it appears that FRIM has accept-
ed the conditions and provide solid inputs to the Programme (from the
Forestry Departments side, the Programme funded activities are consid-
ered important as they are within the mandate of the Department and
help the Department to fulfil its obligations).
 The frequent and detailed audit system was new to FRIM and initially
caused delays during audits (which in turn delayed imbursements from
the RNE), however, a new accountant has been transferred to FRIM and
for the last year accounting has worked well.
 The HEAL process affected both planning and implementation, partly
due to limited funding (involved two bridging phases with restricted
spending), partly because it shifted focus from implementation of the ac-
tual programme towards the HEAL programme and impeded consistent
long term planning for some time.
 In some cases transfer from the RNE has been insufficient or late due to
poor planning/late requests from the Programme. While this seems to
have improved, it should receive constant attention from the Programme
management.
 Procurement through the Chancellor College has sometimes been very
slow, the programme management expects faster procurement following
the independence of LEAD.
 The transfer in an early stage of the activities regarding Conservation
Agriculture from FRIM to LEAD has probably increased effectiveness

21www.niras.com
and efficiency since it was outside the mandate of FRIM. Hiring of a pro-
fessional member of staff in CA has also strengthened the capacity and
improved the efficiency as recommended by PSC
The above aspects, many of which are outside of or only partly within Pro-
gramme control have caused both coordination problems and delay in pro-
gramme implementation. However, in general actions have been taken to reduce
the problems and facilitate a more efficient programme management and imple-
mentation.
3.3 Studies and Research
LEAD has close link to Chancellor College (and was until recently embedded in
the university structure). FRIM is a Research Institution, and also WFC carries
out research activities. This provides an excellent background for a strong re-
search component in the programme, enabling high quality studies to be pro-
duced, documenting impact of different interventions on livelihood, environment
– and the relevance in relation to climate change. However, no clear research
agenda has been prepared by the Programme, and though many interesting
studies have been conducted, they appear somewhat scattered and do not al-
ways provide information of use for directing / improving the interventions.
The quality of the studies appears in general to be good, but a structured review
process of both popular and more research oriented papers and reports seems
to be absent; many technical/editorial errors can be observed in the documents.
At the university level climate change and related issues have been integrated
in the curriculum of the Master of Environmental Science programme at the
Chancellor College, and students and researchers have been involved in some
programme supported activities. The Programme has supported two MSc and
one PhD student who have focussed their thesis on Programme relevant issues:
 Community Management of Forest Resources - A case study of Forest
Co-management in Zomba-Malosa Forest Reserve (PhD Gerald Meke).
 Analysing the Spatial and Temporal Trends of Rainfall and Temperature
in the Lake Chilwa Basin (M.Sc Henry Utila).
 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis in the Lake Chilwa Basin (M.Sc Wil-
lie Sagona).
In general, both students and researchers from the university could benefit more
from the programme: there are many interesting research subjects, and the Pro-
gramme has established good contacts and has the logistic in place (travelling
frequently to the hotspots). However, this opportunity seems underexploited and
should be promoted more.
At FRIM, Programme relevant studies and research are undertaken in relation to
species selection and growth, and the Programme has financed the rehabilitation
of the Soil-lab, enabling research on e.g. changes in soil composition as a con-
sequence of conservation agriculture (CA) or tree planting. Analysis of samples
has been made, but no systematic studies of soil changes under CA have been
done.

22www.niras.com
Also, two staff members from WFC are Developing their PhD and Master thesis
based on programme relevant issues (Development issues on Chisi Island; Eco-
nomic efficiency of improved fish smoking kilns).
The project website www.lakechilwaproject.mw provides a number of publica-
tions and studies prepared by the Programme partners. However, in the various
annual reports a number of studies are mentioned which are not available on
the website. Though this list of documents on the website is quite extensive, the
documents are mainly Programme related documents – for instance logical
frame work, annual reports, surveys, etc.
The programme has supported the establishment of a Technologies Learning
Centre (TLC) under the Chancellor College (financed construction of building,
equipment for fuel-briquette production, paper recycling, simple household-level
biogas plants). The idea is to develop, test and/or demonstrate appropriate tech-
nologies.
The Centre can be used by staff and students from the university as well as
community members. Community members are preparing briquettes (from recy-
cled paper and leaves) and paper folders and cards from recycled paper for sell-
ing. They use the facilities free of charge. The Physics Department is presently
looking into biogas production (cheap household level “plastic-bag” plants). So
far, student’s involvement from the university has been limited.
The overall idea with the centre is interesting and relevant, - providing a space
for applied research and the possibility to involve students and communities and
provide solutions that can be spread through the programme. Presently, howev-
er, the impression is that the Centre is not yet used intensively. Obvious technol-
ogies (readily available) such as cook stoves designed for optimal use of fuel
briquettes were not found on the centre.
3.4 Baseline Studies
According to the Logical Framework in the Inception Report, 5 baseline studies
will be conducted (vegetation, livelihood, biodiversity, stakeholder analysis, fish-
eries), and according to the Programme website this has been achieved. The
stakeholder analysis has been made as have other studies, including a good
livelihood identification study, which was presented as a baseline study. From a
methodological point of view, a livelihood identification study is not the same as a
baseline study and cannot replace that. An important difference is that a baseline
study is in fact the first determination of the quantitative or qualitative value of a
number of pre-selected indicators. This is not done in a livelihood study.
The review team finds that proper baseline studies have not been done and that
again means that no objective impact can be measured from the start of the
programme.
3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation
The programme has set up an ambitious, elaborate, web-based monitoring sys-
tem including a well prepared M&E framework with detailed targets and indica-
tors for both results and impacts.

23www.niras.com
The system has been well planned and prepared for a high degree of transpar-
ency by linking directly from the monitoring system to the Programme Website
(http://www.lakechilwaproject.mw/me.php ). However, the link between the sys-
tem and the website has never worked and there is no in-house capacity to fix it.
The M&E Framework in the Inception Report gives a good number of clear input,
result and impact indicators. The input and result indicators have been measured
during the first 4 years of the programme – but the impact indicators have not
been measured at all. Also, input and results are only measured quantitatively –
and not qualitatively i.e. the M&E system is not measuring or following the quality
and performance of those indicators. This means for example that we know that
the training or the capacity building has taken place, but we do not know the
quality of the training – and much less the impact of it.
From the Programme management side it was explained that the absence of
impact monitoring was due to cancellation of a planned mid-term review. The
review team fails to see the linkage.
The lack of proper baseline studies further complicates the monitoring of im-
pacts.
In short, the M&E system is in place, it is very ambitious, but it has not been
used as intended; while it does provide solid data at the result level, it does not
monitor impact. The M&E Framework, updated on the request from the Review
team, is included in Annex 8.
3.6 Gender
According to the Inception Report, a Gender and social Development Expert
would form part of the Programme staff, and work on mainstreaming gender
issues in the Programme activities. This expert however, resigned early during
the first year, and though another development professional did enter the Pro-
gramme, it has meant less focus on gender issues than expected. Gender as-
pects are, however, not absent in the Programme. Activities include:
 Training of staff members on gender mainstreaming in the Programme
 Income generating activities with strong focus on women and women’s
groups
 General balanced participation of both men and women in most activi-
ties
 In selection of tree species for replanting both women’s, men’s and chil-
dren perceptions of useful species were included
 Study on how climate change is perceived among women, men and
youth
The Programme M&E system provides data on number of women and women’s
groups participating in the activities, however, no specific indicators on gender
have been established. It is not known how the activities impacted the wellbeing
of women in general and on households in particular, - did the activities lead to a
more gender balanced distribution of responsibilities within the households? Did
they help to empower women?

24www.niras.com
However, what is clear is that women participated very actively in the project in
the various CA demonstration site, the VNRM committees, the various radio
listeners clubs and the various income generating improving activities such as
fish processing, poultry, piggery and reforestation, and also that they expressed
great satisfaction with the support from the Programme.
3.7 Selected Achievements in Relation to Outputs
3.7.1 Output 1: Increased local capacity
The Programme has supported capacity building on many levels in the Basin. It
has been carried out directly by one of the three consortium partners or through
district structures (district officers and extension workers) and lead farmers or in
partnership with the NGO Emanuel International.
In the District organisational structure the training of district officers has been
limited to a TOT course on climate change adaptation and mitigation for selected
participants, whereas selected extension workers have also received training in
specific Programme relevant activities (e.g. Conservation Agriculture). Most ca-
pacity building, however, has been on-the -job training, through participation in
Programme activities. No detailed Training Needs Assessment was done before
the training. No formal training on central issues as Ecosystem based ap-
proaches; Integrated NRM or Payment for Ecosystem Services has been made.
At local and village level intensive training and capacity building have been car-
ried out in selected communities and have involved farmer/livestock groups;
Women Fish Processing Clubs; Radio Listeners Clubs; BVCs, and VNRMCs in
the hotspot areas. Training has covered climate change, establishment of
VNRMCs, tree planting, conservation farming, income generation (diversification,
improvements), and production of radio programmes. Training has mainly been
done through the District officers with help from their extension workers, but with
financial and technical support from the Programme. In participating communi-
ties capacity for sustainable NRM and governance as well as CC resilient devel-
opment in general appear to have been increased significantly, but again,
whereas the number of training events etc. are documented, the impact of the
capacity building has never been measured.
The Chanco Community Radioprovides important and very context relevant
information for improved livelihood and is an important tool in the overall capacity
development, including inter-community exchange of experiences, in the Basin.
Also, the radio itself serves to train students from the university (presently 6 full
time internships are financed through the Programme, selected among 51 appli-
cants).
3.7.2 Output 2: Integrated management plan for LCB developed and imple-
mented
This outputs include activities related to the overall cross-basin and cross sec-
toral NRM (i.e. the Objective 2: To facilitate and help build cross-basin and
cross-sector natural resource management and planning for climate change
throughout the Basin).

25www.niras.com
The Programme has increased cross-basin cooperation / coordination signifi-
cantly, and Programme activities are planned in close collaboration with District
Authorities. The identification of hotspots – including the challenges facing the
people in the hotspots, was also done in a participatory process, involving both
authorities and local communities.
Cooperation between districts. District Planning Directors from the three dis-
tricts are part of the PMC. This provides a forum for dialogue regarding basin-
wide development and enables District requirements to be integrated in the Pro-
gramme planning – and facilitates the basin-wide Ecosystem approach-thinking
and climate change adaptation to be mainstreamed in the Districts development
planning. Annual meetings are organized for each technical sector in the Districts
(i.e. District agricultural officers from the different districts meet) to promote
cross-basin coordination. However, in spite of the ecosystem based, cross-
sectoral approach promoted by the Programme, there is not a structured system
for technicians from all sectors in the district offices to meet in a cross-sectoral
forum in order to exchange experiences and to benefit from each other’s lessons
learned and develop new ideas.
District commissioners are members of the PSC and meet bi-annually to discuss
and coordinate basin-wide. It appears that the PSC is indeed used for such co-
ordination as well as for support to policy development, and there are even con-
siderations that the committee could form the platform for a future Basin Trust or
a similar entity. The Programme has also arranged several Basin-wide fora
which have been aired on national TV and Radio.
Chanco Community Radio is now fully operational, has all infrastructure in
place and has been broadcasting since July 2013 (licensed since August 2012).
A new board (including, but not limited to, representatives from Chancellor Col-
lege) has recently been approved and will soon be operational. A MoU between
Chancellor College and LEAD will be prepared, detailing the hosting arrange-
ment with the intension to satisfy both parties. Presently the Radio is run with the
support of three staff seconded from Malawi Broadcasting Cooperation (MBC)
and six interns. A full time manager will be contracted by the new Board and
replaces the manager from MBC.
The plan for the future is to run the radio with a trust as licence holder in order to
protect the independence. The name of the radio (Chanco) is short for Chancel-
lor College. A name with reference to the Basin’s name would have been more
appropriate (e.g. Radio Chilwa). The programmes broadcasted by Chanco
Community Radioplay a very important role in distribution of basin-wide infor-
mation and in facilitating dialogue (sms; calls) across the Basin. Presently, the
radio signals can be received in 70% of the Basin according to a survey done in
2013. It is expected that cooperation with Airtel (tele-company) will allow the use
of their masts for a small fee, increasing coverage of the radio. A plan for televi-
sion broadcasting has also been made.
The ten Radio Listeners Clubs (one in each hotspot) formed through the Pro-
gramme provide interesting and context relevant programmes with very simple
means (basic training, voice recorder, bicycles), and at the same time the Clubs

26www.niras.com
have become environmental ambassadors in their areas; - this is value for mon-
ey at its best!
The radio has partnered with several organisations (including Save the Children;
Pakachere; Farm Radio Trust; MBC Radio), who are now broadcasting from the
station, and paying to do so. Such partnerships are important elements in the
long term financial sustainability and help the Radio fulfil its requirements to
broadcast at least 11 hours per day.
Presently it is discussed in LCBCCAP whether Chanco Community Radio should
become a national station, and also be used by the other partners in the new
Network for Enhanced Livelihoods (NEAL, a network of Programmes supported
by the RNE). Going national may help the long-term financial sustainability of the
radio, however, a consequence may be that the strong impact the radio has in
the Basin could be reduced; it appears that the fact that it is a local, Lake Chilwa
Basin radio, broadcasting information with a strong local angel, is important to
the listeners – and makes it part of what binds the Basin together. This could be
lost if the radio becomes a national station.
Hotspot management plans: The output 2 is an Integrated plan for Lake Chilwa
hotspots are developed and implemented. However, detailed hotspot manage-
ment plans have not been developed, though overview of issues to address in
each hotspot has been prepared. Many of the identified challenges are now ad-
dressed through the activities related to output 1,3,4, but the hotspot-wide plans
as such do not exist. Their existence – and a monitoring of their implementation,
- could provide important lessons learned for a realistic, basin-wide management
plan.
3.7.3 Output 3: Improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity and
resilience
The Programme aims to improve the resilience – or reduce the vulnerability - of
people, communities and enterprises to hazards caused by external factors like
climate change or climate variability (e.g. erratic precipitation and extreme rainfall
events), and to internal factors such as reduced access to natural resources due
to unsustainable NRM and increasing demands from a rapidly growing popula-
tion.
Vulnerability means to be vulnerable to degradation. Vulnerability of households
in Malawi is recognised by governmental institutions in general as meaning to be
vulnerable to lack of sufficient and also clean drinking water; to the normal avail-
ability and access of sufficient food products (this is the market indicator); to the
access, distance, quality of services and/or basic medication and the services for
health care for under five children; to the availability of, the distance to, the gen-
der enrolment of education and finally to the food security indicators such as
yields, stocks, duration of the lean period, malnutrition etc.
The vulnerability to these “situations” is generally determined through the map-
ping of vulnerability. In 2012 the WFC carried out a detailed vulnerability map-
ping of the entire basin and indicated the 10 hotspots on the maps. The degree
of vulnerability was measured through a “composite” indicator in which all ele-

27www.niras.com
ments indicated in the former paragraph were represented and shown on the
map in different colours.
The exercise was only carried out in 2012 and not repeated. A series of a mini-
mum of two vulnerability maps per year – for the whole project period it would
make 10 in total – would have given the LCBCCAP an excellent tool for compar-
ing the vulnerability of households to the different situations such as WATSAN,
market situation, health situation, education situation and food security situation
etc. The fact that this was not carried out deprived the Programme of a tool for
impact through the vulnerability of the households in the hotspot by comparing it
with the households outside the hotspots.
Given the importance the Programme attributes to the households (HH) it must
also be mentioned that no assessment was made of the intra-household living
conditions and quality of live, including issues like: The specific food and nutrition
security indicators such as nutritional status of most vulnerable groups within the
HH – the under-five children and mothers in the age of reproduction, the
WATSAN situation, existence of HIV-AIDS within the HH, people living with
AIDS, feeding practices, gender awareness and gender equality, level of gender
transformation etc.
The Programme does not take these intra-household data into account though
they are fundamental for a programme, striving for a better environment and
strengthening resilience against effects of climate change in order to have posi-
tive sustainable results.
However, though impact data are missing, the Review Team found that in all the
communities visited by the Team, the different individuals, groups and commit-
tees clearly expressed their satisfaction about the interventions, which they per-
ceived as making positive changes in their lives.
The interventions supported by the Programme under this output involve the
main economic sectors in the Basin; agriculture, fisheries and livestock and fo-
cus on diversification and / or improvement of production and income generating
activities through Conservation Agriculture, Poultry and Pig rearing; Value addi-
tion; Improved fish processing and marketing, and improved NRM through the
VNRMCs. Most activities are implemented through the District Extension work-
ers, with support from the Programme. In the case of the Value addition in agri-
cultural value chains, the NGO Emanuel International has been contracted to
support the process as part of their ongoing value-chain work in the Wellness
and Agriculture for Life Advancement (WALA) programme.
Conservation agriculture (CA) is considered Climate Smart Agriculture be-
cause it is better adapted to erratic rainfall than the traditional agriculture in the
Basin (the increased organic matter content in the soil resulting from this practice
helps to retain moisture, and mulching reduces evaporation – and increases soil
fertility). At the same time, the increased carbon storage in the soil supports cli-
mate change mitigation. The Programme has also introduced CA with the simple
reason that it needs less labour, it gives higher yields and it is on long term more
sustainable. In all the hotspots this practice is introduced through the District’s
Agriculture Development Office (DADO). The table presents figures for six Ex-
tension Planning Areas (EPAs) where CA is introduced, showing number of par-
ticipating farmers and the yields after introduction of CA compared with tradi-

28www.niras.com
tional yields. In the last column the differences have been shown. These differ-
ences between the two systems are quite large but also rather irregular. It must
be stressed that at least part of the differences is because fertilizers and hybrid
maize seeds were given – and herbicides were used during the first season (fer-
tilizer is, however, also applied in traditional systems). Agriculture extension of-
ficers who carry out the daily monitoring of this new practice indicate that CA
gives higher yields (1st
year + 20%, 2nd
year 40-50% and 3rd
year + 60%). Ad-
vantages/practices in general heard were: minimal soil disturbances, mulching,
crop mixing, rotation, compost and long-term no use of fertilizers.
EPA No. of farmers Average yield EPA
LCBCCA CA MT/ha1
Traditional yields
EPA MT/ha2
Differences
1. Ngwelero
2. Nanyumbo
3. Domasi
4. Kasongo
5. Malosa
6. Nsanama
92
76
39
9
30
20
1.330
2.883
4.825
2.354
4.300
3.988
1.127
1.316
1.693
1.491
2.093
1.224
18%
119%
184%
58%
105%
126%
Totals 266 1.3–6.3 MT/ha 1.1–2.1 MT/ha 18-184%
Yields from Programme supportedCA plots insix EPAs. The data were obtained by the LCBCCAP
agriculture officer and the table was made jointly with her.
The number of farmers participating is not large. In two Districts we made rough
calculations of farmers applying CA and percentages were only 1 - 2% in the
Phalombe District and 13% in the Machinga District. The calculation is based on
figures given by the DADO’s extension officers during field visits. However, ex-
amples were seen were farmers on their own or with minimum support from the
Programme adopt CA, showing that it is perceived as a beneficial farming sys-
tem by the farmers.
A major concern, also expressed in the 2013 review, is the use of herbicides in
CA, especially during the first year of farming. The Programme has not pur-
chased herbicides this year, but does not have a policy of not using them – or of
only using herbicides which are permitted in Europe (Bullet has been used, a
product which is banned in Europe due to its toxicity). Interviews during our
fieldtrips suggest that in general neither extension workers nor farmers are suffi-
ciently trained and equipped to use herbicides in a safe manner. Also, the gen-
eral use of expensive inputs such as hybrid Maize and fertilizer is a concern –
both in terms of dependence and costs (however, if well applied, CA may require
less fertilizer in the long run than traditional farming). Obvious research ques-
tions for the Programme involves looking into how low-input CA can best be
practiced, preferably without herbicides. Close monitoring of all aspects are im-
portant.
The Programme has supported improved fish processing in order to reduce
post-harvest losses, and increase quality and income. Support has been given to
three Women Fish Processing Clubs and includes training, value chain studies,
and technical and financial support for three fish processing facilities including
1
2012/2013 growing season projectsites LCBCCAP CA.
2
2012/2013 growing season general EPA

29www.niras.com
solar dryers, sorting / packing facilities and improved smoking kilns (requiring
less firewood than traditional smoking practices and providing better quality).
Also, as a result of the support, Mobil banking is now available on a weekly ba-
sis, and both the individual members and the groups as such have bank ac-
counts. Work is been done in coordination between WFC and District Fisheries
Office and their Extension Service. Initial investments in infrastructure are high,
but the facilities work well (when there are fish in the lake) and there is no doubt
that it has reduced losses and improved quality of the products (though data to
document this is missing). The facilities have been handed over to the Women
Clubs, though they are not formally registered in any way. No documentation
regarding ownership has been made. Next step, starting in April 2014, is a pro-
cess towards certification through the National Bureau of Certification, - this
would allow the Women groups to sell their products through supermarkets
through-out the country.
Figure 5 shows fish smoking kiln; fish in the smoking kiln; and fish drying houses (Ma-
lunguni Women fish processing group).
In one case a solar dryer has now been constructed without support from the
Programme, suggesting that the system may spread to other landing sites. It
may be expected that activity on sites without infrastructure may decline, since
fishermen may choose to deliver to landing sites with facilities in order to obtain
higher prices. The impact of this should be assessed.
As part of the support to the Fishery sector, Beach Village Committees have
also been supported, - they act as local authority, e.g. enforcing fishing closing
seasons and the right mesh size in fishing gear
Value addition has also been supported in the agricultural sector, through a
partnership with the NGO Emmanuel International in Machinga District. Pro-
gramme support has involved support to value chain studies and training in value
addition in value chains with chillies, rice, pigeon peas, ground nuts, and maize
(including improved seeds, better grading, bulk marketing), resulting in increased
prices for the products. Value chain studies has also be supported in charcoal,
firewood and bamboo-basket weaving.
The project stimulates poultry and pig breeding at small scale. These activities
are technically introduced and monitored by the livestock extension workers.
Groups of farmers receive training, and receive animals for free, - however on
the condition that the first offspring is passed on to other farmers to increase
coverage (type of revolving fund). Though this practise has often failed, the case
visited was functioning at this point. However, the system may easy collapse,
e.g. dye to one of frequent outbreak of poultry or pig diseases. Again, close mon-
itoring is needed to see if this activity is indeed sustainable over time. It is sup-
posed that these activities – mainly implemented by women – improve incomes

30www.niras.com
of families and will contribute to the food and nutrition security of household.
Experiences from other countries and other projects in Malawi, however, show
that these income generating activities only have impact on the food and nutrition
security situation of households if specific so called “knowledge, attitude and
practice” training for caretakers i.e. mothers is introduced.
Overall, the interventions are quite traditional (with some innovations in the
Fishery sector), and need close monitoring and possibly further development.
They do, however, appear to support the output, i.e. improving household and
enterprise adaptive capacity and resilience. Apart from the direct beneficiaries, it
also builds capacity in the District system to spread such initiatives further. For
now, the scale of the interventions is, however, rather limited.
3.7.4 Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased
The Programme has participated in policy debates and strategy development,
including on REDD+ and a number of other climate change and environment
related topics. It could further strengthen its position to do so, if programme
impacts were better analysed and documented, enabling experiences to feed
into the debate.
Through the capacity building of VNRMCs (34 committees established with
support from the programme), tree planting has been promoted along riversides
(flood-protection and compliance with 10 m buffer zones required by law), in
woodlots, and in fields (as an element of Conservation Agriculture). Fruit trees
have been planted both in those associations and around houses. In general in
the visited areas there was a high demand for more trees, and especially more
fruit trees. Established VNRMCs have byelaws, signed by the District Commis-
sioner, protecting the trees. Examples were provided during the trips, showing
that the committees have started to enforce the protection of trees, through fines.
Survival rates for trees are generally high according to the M&E data, - partly due
to the bonus paid to the committees for surviving plants (placed in the village
bank/fund), but also due to a genuine interest in increasing tree cover. The tree
planting activities through the VNRMC´s appear to be an appropriate way of
promoting tree-planting and ensure that they are protected and used in a sus-
tainable way, and though impact studies are missing, this approach should be
up-scaled. The work has been coordinated by FRIM and implemented with to-
gether with the District Forestry office and the forestry extension workers.
The work with NRM through the committees is fully within government policies
on decentralized management of NRM.
Selection of species for planting has been done with the support from FRIM.
Species include well-known agroforestry species, fruit trees, fast growing species
for firewood and timber and includes both indigenous and exotic species. Spe-
cies selection process seems thoroughly done and well justified.
The Zomba Mountain test plantation (15 ha, 20.000 trees) established and
managed by FRIM with seven indigenous species in a plantation system has
multiple purposes: research, demonstration of the potential of indigenous spe-
cies, gene bank, catchment protection, cooperation with community in non-

31www.niras.com
conflictive reclamation of encroached gov. forest (they continue to cultivate be-
tween the trees and protect the trees – later they benefit from NTFPs and dead
branches). The FRIM test plantation serves a number of purposes which are
very relevant for the Programme, and fully justify the plantation. However, con-
sidering the emphasis the Programme has on CA, it is surprise that traditional
agriculture rather than CA is practised in the plantation.
The Chirunga forest reserve (Chancellor College) likewise serves several of
those purposes, and the location close to the university provide easy access to
staff/students who may undertake studies there. Like in the Zomba Mountain
case, it should be considered if CA, rather than traditional agriculture, should be
promoted here as well.
Apart from carbon stock increase above and below ground, activities have been
undertaken to reduce emissions, through distribution (and now local produc-
tion) of improved, mobile cook stoves (now being produced locally in some
communities), improved kilns for smoking fish, and work on the Zomba plateau
to reduce forest fires. Briquette production using leaves and waste paper is done
on a small scale at the Technologies Learning Centre.
The M&E system provides data on number of trees planted, ha reforested, and
survival rates. According to the monitoring framework, targets have been
achieved on those indicators
However, monitoring of carbon stock increases and change in forest coverage in
the Basin have not been monitored, so it cannot be assessed whether those
impact indicators have been achieved. This means that impact in relation to this
indicator cannot be assessed.
4 REVIEW CRITERIA
This section summarizes important aspects of the programme in relation to the
review criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability.
4.1 Relevance
 The programme activities are well aligned with Malawi Policies, strate-
gies and programmes, including the NAPA and the decentralization poli-
cy.
 Most activities have a potential for replication / upscaling, in some cases
with limited external support. However, a detailed impact analysis look-
ing into the best practices should be made before doing so.
 Also, most activities are made through the District system and this
means that in principle the system to support continued action is in
place.
 The programme activities in general address important NRM and liveli-
hood issues in the Basin, and provide relevant responses to a number
of the existing challenges. However, again, a detailed assessment of im-
pact has not yet been done by the programme because the M&E sys-
tem has not been applied as planned.

32www.niras.com
 No House Hold approach (intra household food security, nutrition,
growth, improved feeding habits ) has been adapted while “health fami-
lies” in “healthy environments” is the final aim.
4.2 Effectiveness
 The monitoring system provides data on Input/results, and in general
terms the Programme has met the targets set in the M&E Framework
(see Annex 8). The impact has not been monitored and documented,
but the review team consider that the programme has contributed to food
security trough diversification and strengthening of income generating
activities, improved productivity through Conservation Agriculture, intro-
duction of fruit trees in tree planting and support to Village banks (e.g.
performance based payment for survival of planted trees).
 Implementation through district or other government structures is gener-
ally not considered very efficient and therefore direct implementation
through an NGO is often preferred. However, long term sustainability
aspects justify the approach and may provide more value for money in
the long run in spite of the obvious deficiencies in the system. Also, the
process contributes strongly to the cross basin coordination, which is
one of the programme objectives. These aspects are fundamental to the
Programme, and by using this approach, the Programme helps to build
an important framework for all the more narrowly focussed interventions
done by other programmes. Also, it enables scaling-up without neces-
sarily hiring a large additional staff in the Programme, since most of the
work will be carried out through the districts, and District authorities have
expressed that with funding for transport, materials, lunch allowances,
they will be able to participate in such an up-scaling.
 The geographically dispersed interventions in the Hotspots have given
Programme staff logistical challenges, and may have reduced efficiency
and effectiveness in the daily operations of support and monitoring.
Benefits, however, of the approach include strengthening cross-basin di-
alogue and interaction, paving the way for a basin-wide ecosystem-
based management.
 Also, the focus on the hotspots located throughout the Basin in different
environments and with different challenges can provide important les-
sons learned from different areas, and become centres from where in-
terventions can spread. This, however, requires that the experiences
and lessons learned are documented and put to use (and this is still a
week point). If not the approach is wasting time and resources, com-
pared to a more geographically focussed intervention area.
4.3 Efficiency
 Though initial costs were high, there are very good value for money in
the Chanco Community Radio, where a very low-cost production of
LCBCCAP-relevant radio programmes is produced by Radio-listeners
Clubs throughout the Basin.
 Working (partly) with / through the government system (Districts, FRIM)
means that Programme costs are reduced since salaries for public em-
ployees are financed through the government.

Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track

Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track

Similar to Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track (20)

More from Aart van der heide

More from Aart van der heide (20)

Mid-term review finds Lake Chilwa adaptation programme on track