Lakes of Ounianga

The local populations in and around the property are organized into a Local Management Committee known as the "Local Committee" recognized by Decree No. 1077/PR/PM/MCJS/2010 classifying and protecting the Ounianga Lakes site as a natural site as of 15.12.2010. Its organization and operation are governed by Order No. 064/PR/PM/MC/SG/CNSIP/2011. However, since the property was inscribed and this Committee was formalized, various evaluation missions (Malan, 2015; APEF, 2021) have been unanimous regarding the ineffectiveness of this Local Committee, which was also noted by the participatory diagnosis of the 2021-2030 management plan. Some issues include the unstructured nature of the committee, lack of equipment, especially IT tools, lcak of regular meetings within the regulatory deadlines (every 3 months), lack of financial autonomy, lack of knowledge of their role and function, inability to document the implementation of activities, and gender inequality (CLGLO, 2021). However, since time immemorial, the local populations have maintained and protected the lakes against external aggressions (silting, solid and liquid waste, etc.). This traditional system has not been sufficiently documented to serve as a basis for the proposal of the property's management.

Decree n° 1077/PR/PM/MCJS/2010 of 15.12.2010 designated the Lakes of Ounianga as a “natural site”. The protected area system of Chad, as established in Law n°14/PR/2008, focuses on fauna and flora conservation and, alone, is not fully suited to Ounianga. Thus, responsibility for the property is vested in the Ministry of Culture. Under the decree, all activities that could threaten the integrity of the property, including mining, are forbidden. This decree is complemented by the Decree No. 630 which regulates the need to prepare Environmental Impact Assessments for development projects (World Heritage Committee, 2012). The operational implementation of the Management Plan is entrusted to the Local Committee which was created in September 2011 by decree No. 064/PR/PM/MC/SG/CNSIP/2011. It is supported in its activities by the National Interministerial and Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee (CNSIP). However, the application of these laws is not effective on the ground, due in part to reasons mentioned above.

Governance arrangements and decision-making processes are not transparent and not appropriately communicated. Responsibilities for implementation are clear, including a readily accessible process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes, or grievances, but not effectively implemented. Four structures are involved in the implementation of activities for the property : i) The Technical Committee; ii) The National Interministerial and Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee, iii) The Site Managers; iv) Local Organization and Execution Committee (Local Committee). Despite the existence of validated texts and management plans, the participatory diagnosis of the current management plan (CLGLO, 2021), notes a lack of communication between the actors based in the capital (Technical Committee, Scientific Committee, Manager) and the Local Committee based onsite, more than 1200 km from the capital. This configuration is the basis for the non-implementation of the activities planned in the management plans.

The Ounianga Lakes belong to the national network of Protected Areas and Fragile Ecosystems of Chad. It is much more an operational or political network than a biological network. Indeed, the programme is managed by the Ministry of the Environment and Fisheries while the property is managed by the Ministry in charge of culture.

The boundaries of the 62,808 ha site have been designed to ensure its integrity. The site includes the area situated below the 450m contour line within the immediate lake watershed. The 4,869 ha buffer zone includes the village of Ounianga Kebir beside Lake Yoan. Zoning for management of the site takes into account pressures which are now mainly concentrated on Lake Yoan. Ounianga Serir, the smallest village (population of c. 1,000 in 2012) is next to Lake Teli, inside the property (World Heritage Committee, 2012). The property is large enough to ensure visual integrity. The boundaries offer an appropriate degree of protection for the natural functions.

No overlap with other international designations.

The Committee's last decision concerning the property dates back to 2015 (39 COM 7B.3, Bonn 2025), where it welcomed the progress achieved by the State Party in a number of areas, including participation of local communities in the management of the site, as well as its efforts aimed at addressing the threats to the property (World Heritage Committee, 2015). Since then, no decision has been taken concerning the property.

The 2021-2030 management plan for the Ounianga Lakes aims for its socio-economic development, its cultural diversity in a pleasant and ideal living environment for all. Six programmes, broken down into projects, correspond to the chosen orientations. No programme or project includes specific provisions to protect the OUV from the negative impacts of climate change. Moreover, the management plan claims that climate change has had no perceptible influence on the integrity of the property. Therefore, there is no system in place to measure and monitor the effects of climate change on the OUV of the site, as it’s clear that climate change is not a priority issue of the property’s management.

The site has a current management plan (Plan 3). It succeeds the previous one that ran from 2014 to 2023 (Plan 2), which itself replaced the first one (Plan 1) developed during the nomination (2011 to 2016). Some of the activities related to the objectives of Plan 1 had begun to be implemented. However, before the end of this plan and without an evaluation of said plan, Plan 2 (2014-2023) was developed with broadly the same objectives as Plan 1. Plan 3 (2021-2030), to date, has certainly evaluated Plan 2, but was developed before the end of that (set for 2023). The evaluation of Plan 2 shows that of the 28 planned activities, only 2 have been carried out, i.e. a completion rate of 7.14%. This figure is a good indicator of the non-implementation of the site's management plans since its inscription. In theory, the current management plan clearly identifies values, management objectives, desired management outcomes, and key threats. However, no evidence is seen that this plan is actively used to guide management. Four structures are fundamentally involved in the implementation of the activities of the management plan: i) the Technical Committee; ii) the National Interministerial and Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee; iii) the site managers appointed by the Cultural Heritage Directorate and iv) the Local Management Committee. The management plan clarifies the role of each structure and its responsibilities. However, the participatory diagnosis (CLGLO, 2021) notes that of the 4 structures, in reality only the Local Committee is operational. Yet, it is not structured and is unable to provide reports on the implementation of its actions. According to an evaluation report of the "Support for the concerted management of Protected Areas and Fragile Ecosystems of Chad" program, (Coordination nationale APEF, 2021), the members of the Local Committee continue to complain with the same arguments as those noted by Malan (2015) a few years ago. Indeed, according to them, after the inscription of the property in 2012, a lump sum was paid by the Ministry in charge of culture to each member, but unfortunately, since 2014, the State has suspended these lump sums. Therefore, local communities do not benefit from the World Heritage site nomination. The official manager is based in the capital, without material resources. The effective implementation of the management plan requires a mandated manager on the ground and currently Committee members' complaints continue.

A certain improvement has been achieved in the field of enforcement, particularly with regards to regulations around solid waste and restrictions on vehicles access to the lakes (State Party of Chad, 2015). The role of each structure is clarified by a legal text (decree or ministerial order).

To implement the action plan, an annual budget has been prepared and its funding has been guaranteed by Order of the Prime Minister, Head of Government (Order N°2893/PR/PM/MC/2011 dated 6 September 2011). The overall cost of the revised 2021-2030 Management Plan (CLGLO, 2021) for the Ounianga Lakes Site amounts to €1,231,200. The State Party will have to mobilize its own funds amounting to €369,360 as part of the co-financing of the projects, i.e. nearly 30% of the overall cost of the Plan. The additional financing is €861,840. However, thanks to international partners (donors and NGOs), the Ounianga area benefits from relatively significant funding which is however much more focused on the sustainability of traditional oasis exploitation systems, rather than on the conservation of the site's values ​​(Bouju and Regnaut, 2021). Overall, the sustainability of the financing of the management plan is not guaranteed.

The site has only two government officials: the manager and his deputy based 1,250 km from the site. The manager resigned, and his deputy who replaced him is the current director of the Chadian National Museum (CLGLO, 2021). The site is a natural property whose management is placed under the supervision of the Ministry in charge of Culture, specifically the Director of Cultural Heritage, while the other protected areas and fragile ecosystems in Chad are managed by the Ministry in charge of the Environment. Day-to-day management is the responsibility of the Local Committee, which has been raising issues regarding insufficient funding since 2014. A mission financed by the African World Heritage Fund, at the request of the Chadian government (Malan, 2015) noted the lack of information and capacity building of both the members of the Local Committee and the manager at the time on the mechanisms of the World Heritage Convention. Furthermore, the manager and members of the Local Committee complain about the lack of basic equipment for working (computer equipment, cars, etc.). These issue continue to persist.

There have been some awareness activities organized in schools and for visitors (including the importance of protecting the lake waters), however education activities need to be continued and increased (IUCN, 2011). A number of awareness raising activities have been ongoing (State Party of Chad, 2016). In the new management plan, awareness, education and communication is a strategic axis which proposes, among other things, to implement IEC strategies, to design and implement training and awareness manuals, etc.

The site is one of Chad's well-known tourist products. It is indeed one of the destinations of the Chadian Tourism Office (OTT), but there is very little or no collaboration between the managers of the property and this organization. Tourism promotion is a priority program of the new management plan (CLGLO, 2021) and there are initiatives on the ground led by the Local Committee to organize tourism. However, there is no formal plan or any tourism strategy validated for the site. Furthermore, local guides are not sufficiently trained (CLGLO, 2021). Since the Covid-19 pandemic and the recent political-military crisis in Chad, tourism has been somewhat down in this region. Moreover, the surge of visitors supposedly expected after the property was inscribed as World Heritage has really not taken place, much to the disappointment of the members of the Local Committee (Malan, 2015).

The local communities’ use of natural resources, in particular of the date palms and the groundwater, is as sustainable as it has been for centuries in this traditional “date culture”. The impact of the very limited fishing is difficult to assess. In the current management plan, sustainable use is taken into account through program No. 5 (Increase and improvement of production by ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources) composed of three projects. For the moment these are only projects and therefore difficult to evaluate.

Regular monitoring of the lakes’ hydrology is being undertaken by a hydrologist from the Ministry of Water (State Party of Chad, 2016), but these are one-off surveys carried out as part of Master's studies (Cf. Raimond et al., 2019). Several programmes and studies have noted the crucial nature of hydrological monitoring of the lakes (Travi, 2021; Van der Meeren et al., 2019), yet the current management plan (CLGLO, 2021) does not include any provision for scientific monitoring of this parameter as well as other biodiversity elements, which contribute to the maintenance of the site.

Several international research institutes have been conducting research in the area. The lakes represent an archive for environmental and climate history (Kröpelin, 2007a,b; 2009; Kröpelin et al., 2016; Sylvestre et al., 2017; Dinies et al., 2019; Van Meeren et al., 2019); among others, they are of high interest to paleolimnology (Creutz et al., 2016), modern and early Holocene mollusc fauna (Van Bocxlaer et al., 2011). From the lakes Boukou and Djara (two of the seven Ounianga Serir lakes) tropical relict fish species (Hemichromis fasciatus and Epiplatys bifasciatus) have been more recently recorded (Trape, 2016; 2018). Important studies have been conducted on lake diatoms (Rirongarti et al., 2023). The results of this research are available and allow for long-term monitoring. However, the current management plan does not include any provisions concerning scientific research (priority needs, funding, mechanisms for valorising results, etc.) or the consideration of research results in management actions.

The property has an up-to-date management plan (2021-2030) and the legal texts that underpin its existence are available. The buffer zone surrounding the two groups of lakes (Ounianga Kebir and Ounianga Serir) is very large (4,869 hectares). It protects the property from certain human actions that are harmful to the property, such as uncontrolled construction.

The property has an up-to-date management plan (2021-2030) and the legal texts that underpin its existence are available. However, the planned actions are not effectively implemented due to lack of funding and, above all, a dysfunction in the decision-making chain. As proof, the evaluation of the last plan showed that it was only implemented at less than 8% (CLGLO, 2021). The problems underlying this poor performance persist.