GOVERNMENT OF ANGOLA
GOVERNMENT OF BOTSWANA
GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP)
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)
INTERIM EVALUATION
OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
OF THE OKAVANGO RIVER BASIN
PROJECT (RAF/00/G33/A/1G/12)
Philip Tortell and Nii Boi Ayibotele
Luanda, Windhoek, Gaborone, December 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team would like to acknowledge the assistance it received from various individuals and
organizations in carrying out the evaluation.
Firstly, we would like to mention the many people in Angola, Botswana and Namibia that we met with. We are
grateful to the OKACOM Commissioners and the OBSC members who shared their experiences of
OKACOM's operations and clarified the procedures of the Commission. Public officials in ministries dealing
with energy, water, environment, agriculture, forestry, wildlife and local government provided valuable
information by describing how their work is related to the Okavango River Basin in their respective countries
and provided documents and reports which enhanced the team's understanding of the project the team is
indebted to them. The NGOs responsible for organizing the Basin-wide Forum provided insightful information
and documentation about how communities are organized at grassroots level to participate in the
management of natural resources of the Basin we thank them.
Secondly, the team would like to express its appreciation to all who responded to the draft report with
comments either verbally or in writing. This enabled us to modify our views where appropriate to reflect the
realities on the ground and to amend statements so as to bring out their true meaning and intent. The written
comments of the past Project Manager, the interim Project Manager and the FAO are particularly
acknowledged with gratitude.
The team would also like to thank FAO (at Headquarters in Rome, the Regional Office in Accra and the
Country Office in Luanda) for providing background documentation and other information through written
comments and telephone conferences. The PMU in Luanda was helpful by providing documentation on the
project, arranging the schedule of appointments, assisting with logistics and sharing with the team its office
and facilities while we were in Luanda. The team is grateful for this assistance.
The team is also very grateful to the UNDP family. We thank the UNDP-GEF Regional Office in Pretoria for
the detailed initial and subsequent briefings and extensive documentation provided and also for responding to
the incessant questions raised by the team during the mission. The careful facilitation of appointments by the
UNDP Country Office in Windhoek is also gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, the insights provided by the
UNDP Country Offices in each of Luanda, Windhoek and Gaborone are similarly acknowledged.
Finally, the team is very grateful to the IRBM Project Manager and his staff, as well as to USAID, for sharing
with the team the work they have done in the Basin and which has a bearing on EPSMO, and their experience
in working in the three riparian countries. The OKACOM Interim Secretariat under the same project, provided
us with extensive information on the Secretariat, arranged various appointments and assisted us with other
logistics both in Botswana as well as for the final presentation meeting in Pretoria the team is indeed
grateful.
THE EVALUATION TEAM
Philip Tortell
Consultant
Environmental Management Limited
P O Box 27 433, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Tel +64-4-384 4133, Fax +64-4-384 4022, Email <tortell@attglobal.net>
Nii Boi Ayibotele
Consultant
Nii Consult
P.O. Box Os 981, Osu, Accra, GHANA
Tel +233-21-761007,
Fax +233-21-761008, Email <ayibotele@ghana.com>
2
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
1
INTRODUCTION
10
1.1
Background
10
1.2
Purpose of the evaluation
10
1.3
Key issues addressed
11
1.4
Methodology of the evaluation
11
1.4.1
Mission schedule
11
1.4.2
The approach adopted
11
1.4.3
Documents reviewed and consulted
12
1.4.4
Consultations
12
2
THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
13
2.1
Project start and duration
13
2.2
Problems that the project seeks to address
13
2.3
Overall and Immediate Objectives of the project
14
2.4
Main stakeholders
14
2.5
Results expected
15
3
FINDINGS : PROJECT FORMULATION
16
3.1
Ownership
16
3.2
Project logic and design
16
3.3
Linkages between the project and other interventions
17
3.4
Implementation and institutional framework
18
3.5
Stakeholder participation in project formulation
19
3.6
Conclusions on project formulation and design
19
4
FINDINGS : PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
20
4.1
Project governance
20
4.1.1
General governance issues
20
4.1.2
Policy and guidance the Project Steering Committee
21
4.1.3
Role of UNDP as the Implementing Agency
22
4.1.4
Role of OKACOM
23
4.1.5
Conclusions on project governance
24
4.2
Project administration
26
4.2.1
The role of FAO as the Executing Agency
26
4.2.2
The disbursement process
27
4.2.3
The recruitment process
28
4.2.4
Travel authorization
29
4.2.5
Conclusions on project administration
30
4.3
Project management
30
4.3.1
The PMU and the NCUs
30
4.3.2
Project personnel
32
4.3.3
Special relationship with OKACOM
32
4.3.4
Project performance monitoring
32
4.3.5
Conclusions on project management
33
4.4
State of the budget and financial viability
34
4.5
Coordination with other initiatives
37
4.6
Lessons learnt
38
3
5
FINDINGS : RESULTS AND IMPACTS
38
5.1
Progress to date
38
5.2
Project impacts and sustainability
39
5.3
Stakeholder involvement in implementation
40
5.4
Conclusions on results
41
6
COLLECTED CONCLUSIONS
42
7
RECOMMENDATIONS : WHERE TO FROM HERE?
47
ANNEXES
1
Independent Evaluation Terms of Reference
2
Mission Schedule
3
Documents reviewed and consulted
4
Persons met and consulted
5
Proposed Terms of Reference for the Project Steering Committee (PSC)
6
Financial management tables as supplied by FAO
7
PMU Summary Report on Progress
4
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APR
Annual Programme Review
CTA
Chief Technical Adviser
DWA
Department of Water Affairs, Botswana
DNA
Direcçäo Naçional de Águas, Angola
EA
Environmental Assessment
EA
Executing Agency
EPSMO
Environmental Protection & Sustainable Management of the Okavango Basin Project
EU
European Union, also EC European Commission
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GTZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Aid Agency)
GWP
Global Water Partnership
IA
Implementing Agency
IMP
Integrated Management Plan
IRBM
Integrated River Basin Management Project
IWRM
Integrated Water Resources Management
LogFrame
Logical Framework Matrix
MEA
Ministério da Energia e Águas, Angola
NCU
National Coordination Unit
NGO
Non-Government Organisation
NWRMR
Namibian Water Resources Management Review
OBSC
Okavango Basin Steering Committee
OKACOM
Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission
ORB
Okavango River Basin
PDF-B
Preparatory Development Facility Phase B (GEF)
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PM
Project Manager
PMU
Project Management Unit
ProDoc
Project Document
PSC
Project Steering Committee
SADC
Southern Africa Development Community
SAP
Strategic Action Programme
SBAA
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (UNDP with Governments)
SBEAA
Standard Basic Executing Agency Agreement (UNDP with FAO)
SIDA
Swedish International Development Agency
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TPR
Tri-partite Review
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This is the Interim Evaluation Report for the GEF/UNDP/FAO Environmental Protection and
Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin Project (EPSMO) which started in
November 2004 after many delays. The EPSMO followed a Preparatory Phase which ran from
1997 to 2000 in response to an approach to GEF by the Governments of Angola, Namibia and
Botswana, through their Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM). EPSMO will
undertake a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), and formulate a Strategic Action
Programme (SAP), setting the stage for long term investment activities to protect the ecological
integrity of the Basin. This will address the critical transboundary elements of the Environmental
Assessment and Integrated Management Plan originally proposed by OKACOM,
The project is being carried out in the three riparian countries namely, Angola, Namibia and
Botswana. UNDP is the Implementing Agency on behalf of GEF and it, in turn, has contracted FAO
to serve as the Executing Agency. OKACOM is identified as the project's Coordinating Agency
while Angola has accepted to serve as the host for the PMU.
This project is facing serious difficulties. The expectations of various stakeholders are in harmony,
but the means of achieving the project objectives are the subject of contention.
Roles and
responsibilities are not clear, the procedures of the Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency
are not well understood, project governance is weak, the inception phase got bogged down in
secondary activities, delivery rate is well below normal, the Project Manager has resigned, and
project activities are currently halted.
The fundamental issue addressed by the evaluation team is whether the project is still viable. An
abandoned project is not good for stakeholders, however, a project which proceeds and fails, is
even worse. In determining whether the project should go ahead, and if so, how, the evaluation
team attempted to address the barriers that have thus far prevented this project from progressing
towards its goals.
FINDINGS
Project ownership
The evaluation team is impressed by the high degree of ownership shown in this project by
OKACOM and others in the three riparian countries. But this may have been at the expense of
ownership by the three Governments.
Country level involvement in project implementation has
been effected almost exclusively by the OKACOM Commissioners and the OBSC members and this
is especially true of the Angolan Commissioners and OBSC members. While the evaluation team
accepts the fact that the PMU will remain in Luanda, there needs to be a clear understanding by all
stakeholders that the professional independence of the PM and the PMU is not to be questioned
except through the PSC. The PM and PMU must be independent of any one government in the
execution of their duties.
Project governance, administration and management
6
EPSMO was meant to be steered by a Project Steering Committee (PSC) comprising
representatives of OKACOM, UNDP and FAO. However, the PSC failed to live up to expectations
mainly as a result of the confusion that exists regarding roles and responsibilities of individual
stakeholders as well as a lack of clear understanding of the objectives, constraints, procedures and
processes of the GEF and UNDP. The PSC must be recognized and supported by all stakeholders
as the highest governance body for the project. As such, it must have both the authority and the
power to set policy for the project and to monitor its performance. By confirming and accepting that
the PSC is the highest body for governance of the project, and that issues and disagreements must
be brought to the PSC for resolution, the stakeholders will avoid issues becoming personalized,
which has been a major contributing factor to the problems faced by the project. This report makes
recommendations on the structure and function of the PSC including membership and Terms of
Reference.
FAO has been responsible for the administration of the project and it established the office of
Budget Holder in its regional office for Africa in Accra. The comparative advantage that FAO was
meant to bring to this project is not significant, in that the most unique component is the technical
element and this could have been obtained on contract, separately from the administrative element
which could have been more efficiently carried out by an organization with support systems attuned
to those of UNDP.
The evaluation team has recommended that FAO procedures for disbursements, recruitment and
travel need to change to reflect the specific needs of the project because the alternative is project
failure. In particular, the PM must be given the utmost level of delegation and flexibility and then
supported to get on with the job he/she has been engaged to perform. The evaluation team is
heartened by the indication received from FAO that it is ready to implement measures to streamline
project administration and particularly to assign a high level of delegation and empowerment to the
PM.
As implementing agency, UNDP must be more proactive, and in particular the country offices need
to be more engaged. Of these, the Principal Country Office in Angola must assume the lead role in
supporting and monitoring the project through the PMU.
In addition, UNDP needs to take a more
assertive stance in its requirements of FAO in the delivery of its contractual obligations and these
need to be the subject of a formal Memorandum of Understanding between UNDP and FAO.
Day-to-day management of the project was entrusted to a Project Management Unit (PMU), headed
by the Project Manager.
The establishment of the PMU in Luanda was in accordance with an
OKACOM/Governments decision.
The evaluation team accepts the sentiments behind the
OKACOM decision to place the PMU in Angola, but agrees with many stakeholders that Luanda is a
difficult place to work in.
These difficulties need to be kept in mind when UNDP, FAO and the
Government of Angola are considering the support necessary for the successful functioning of the
PMU.
Monitoring progress towards the project's objective
Progress by the project towards the achievement of its Objective and the three Components is
unsatisfactory and no long term impacts or outcomes can be claimed as yet. The project has under
performed and failed to deliver the outputs expected in the one year it operated. However, if the
project is restarted, and if the various measures recommended in this report are implemented, there
is no reason why the targeted outcomes cannot be achieved.
Since the project had not really taken off, there was not much opportunity to use the LogFrame to
good effect and measure up progress against the set indicators. The ProDoc was of somewhat
limited usefulness for project implementation and performance monitoring mainly because by the
time the project got going, it was rather dated (it had been developed some 3-5 years earlier). If the
project is restarted, a more thorough review of the LogFrame Matrix will be required at the outset to
reflect changed circumstances. It is also essential that an effective monitoring plan is developed
and stakeholders' commitment to the confirmed/revised targets and indicators needs to be obtained
7
through a fresh project inception workshop with the active participation of national/regional key
stakeholders.
Partnership arrangements
Two projects which had the closest working relationship with the EPSMO project were the
"Okavango Improved River Basin Management Project" (IRBM) funded by USAID, and "Every River
Has its People" (ERP) funded by SIDA. While no formal agreement for collaboration was finalized,
the three projects agreed in principle to coordinate their efforts and a list of indicative follow-up
actions was drawn up. If the project is restarted, it will need to reopen the productive dialogue with
both these initiatives, update its commitment and collaborate effectively for mutual benefit. There
may even be merit in attempting to blend the three LogFrames of IRBM, ERP and EPSMO.
The distinguishing feature of the EPSMO project has been described as its creation of the holistic
Basin-wide context within which other initiatives in the Basin can nest. However, it cannot, and
must not, do this in isolation and collaboration with these and other relevant initiatives in the Basin is
an essential element in its implementation approach.
Stakeholder participation
Stakeholder involvement in project implementation has been patchy. The evaluation team found
that the involvement of key stakeholders has been too little by some (UNDP Country Offices) and
too much by others (OKACOM). The former is the result of inadequate resources, while the latter
arose from a misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. The PMU was expected to develop a
public participation plan but this did not materialise before project activities were halted and the
involvement of communities and the public in project implementation has been non-existent.
Project implementation
If the project is restarted, the opportunity should be taken to rephase and rebudget the project, but
not necessarily redesign it.
The focus of the project should be shifted from the capital cities to the
Basin which is where the natural resources are and where those that rely on them, live, and the
emphasis should be moved away from the TDA and more to the SAP component. The TDA must
be completed in the shortest possible time and while it must be able to provide a solid foundation for
the SAP, if gaps are identified, it is not essential to wait until they are filled. Gaps can be recorded
and the SAP can provide the activities that will fill the gaps at the operational phase.
The work on the SAP should focus on the national level in the first instance and if it appears that the
project will run out of time and/or financial resources to complete the Basin-wide SAP, the task can
be handed over to the OKACOM Secretariat which will provide logistical coordination and
administrative support while OBSC will provide the necessary technical input to consolidate the final
SAP. It will also be opportune to involve fully the three staff, one from each country, who will be
seconded to the Secretariat according to the procedures as adopted by OKACOM for the
Secretariat.
On the basis of the financial resources estimated to be remaining, and the time that has been
estimated to be required for completion of the three Components, the evaluation team believes that
financial resources are adequate for the completion of all targeted Outputs. However, experience in
the Basin indicates that the time that is allowed for mobilization, achieving consensus and gaining
trust, is grossly underestimated. Forging relationships and gaining trust takes time, a lot of time,
and if the project is restarted, the stakeholders will need to accept that progress will be slow and
that financial resources may need to be stretched to last as long as necessary.
8
SHOULD THE PROJECT BE RESTARTED?
If the Governments can demonstrate that there is still the political will to sustain the project and with
a clearer understanding and acceptance of the various roles and responsibilities, the restructuring
and acceptance of the PSC as the top body for project governance, the enhancement of support
and monitoring by the Implementing Agency, the streamlining of the administrative procedures of
the Executing Agency, and the removal of other barriers that have hindered it to date, the evaluation
team believes that the project is viable and that if restarted it has a good chance of attaining its
objectives successfully.
However, in order for this to happen, the recommendations made in this report must be accepted
and implemented by all stakeholders as a package and all elements need to be implemented.
Failure to implement some of the proposed changes or taking more than 4-5 months in agreeing to
do so, will jeopardise the success of the project. If decisions are delayed there is a very real risk
that the project may not survive.
9
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The Okavango River Basin (ORB) remains one of the least human impacted basins on the African
continent.
Mounting socio-economic pressures on the basin in the riparian countries, Angola,
Botswana and Namibia, threaten to change its present character. It is anticipated that in the long
term this may result in irretrievable environmental breakdown and consequent loss of national and
global benefits. Maintaining these benefits requires agreement over the sharing of both the benefits
and associated liabilities (to include those of an environmental and ecological nature) through joint
management of the basin's water resources.
The 1994 OKACOM Agreement, the 1995 SADC
Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems and the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-
Navigational Uses of International Watercourses provide a framework for such an agreement.
Under the OKACOM Agreement, the riparian countries are working toward the implementation of an
Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the basin, based on an Environmental Assessment (EA).
To address the critical transboundary elements of the proposed EA and IMP, Stage I of GEF
support will enable the completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), and formulate a
Strategic Action Programme (SAP). This Project provides for these activities, and sets the stage for
long term investment activities to protect the ecological integrity of the basin. Specifically, the TDA
will develop required physical and socio-economic models across the whole basin needed to
facilitate joint management based on wide participation and the removal of institutional barriers.
The SAP will structure diverse inputs and identify specific resources necessary for implementation
of the transboundary elements of the EA and the IMP.
A follow-on project will support
implementation of the SAP. The SAP will provide an essential monitoring and evaluation tool for the
implementation phase. The project provides for a process of formal endorsement of the SAP by the
participating governments, support to the translation of SAP provisions into national policy and
legislation, and the mobilisation of institutional and investment resources for its implementation.
1.2
Purpose of the evaluation
The project has reached the planned half way in its implementation phase and it has experienced
some problems, to the extent that all new activities have been halted by UNDP/GEF.
It was
therefore considered opportune to commission an independent, interim evaluation which, according
to PIR-02, will "address delivery constraints, governance problems, and other issues that have
afflicted the project". With this background, this evaluation is somewhat different from the standard
mid-term evaluation conducted for UNDP/GEF projects the emphasis is not on the assessment of
progress with project activities, because there has been virtually no progress. The focus is more on
determining if there is still support for the project being revived, whether it is viable if it is revived,
and with trying to identify solutions to the problems that have constrained the project. In particular,
governance and administrative arrangements, the extent of country ownership, stakeholder
participation, financial management, monitoring and any lessons learnt, need to be reviewed. The
evaluation team was also required to examine the continuing relevance of the project in light of the
initiation of other activities and the level of commitment to outcomes by all parties.
The evaluation was commissioned by UNDP and has been conducted according to guidance, rules
and procedures for such evaluations established by UNDP and the Global Environment Facility.
The full Terms of Reference for the Independent Interim Evaluation are to be found in Annex 1.
1.3
Key issues addressed
10
Even before the evaluation had started it was evident that this project is facing serious difficulties.
The expectations of various stakeholders are in harmony, but the means of achieving the project
objectives are the subject of contention. Roles and responsibilities are not clear, procedures of the
Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency are not well understood, project governance is
weak, the inception phase got bogged down in secondary activities, delivery rate is well below
normal, the Project Manager has resigned and project activities are currently halted.
The fundamental issue to be addressed is whether the project is viable. An abandoned project is
not good for stakeholders, however, a project which proceeds and fails, is even worse.
In determining whether the project should go ahead, and if so, how, the evaluation team attempted
to address the barriers that have thus far prevented this project from progressing towards its goals.
These range from the adequacy of project formulation and implementation arrangements, to
misunderstandings regarding standard procedures for the implementation of UNDP/GEF projects,
ineffective project governance, complex administrative arrangements and a management vacuum
with the resignation of the PM.
All these issues are addressed in this report.
1.4
Methodology of the evaluation
1.4.1 Mission schedule
The evaluation was conducted by a team of two independent evaluators. The team commenced its
work from homebase on 14 September 2006. It then arrived in Pretoria on 18 September and after
three days, travelled to Luanda, Angola, on 21 September. The evaluation team spent seven days
in Luanda and then travelled to Windhoek, Namibia, on 28 September.
After seven days in
Windhoek, the evaluation team travelled to Botswana and visited Gaborone and Maun. The team
stayed in Botswana for 14 days, after which the team disbanded for the time being.
Following a period of just over four weeks, the evaluation team started work again on 28 November
2006 from homebase and reassembled in Pretoria on 01 December.
After some six days of
redrafting and a final presentation, the mission ended on 08 December 2006.
A detailed schedule for the evaluation mission is in Annex 2.
1.4.2 The approach adopted
The evaluation process comprised three phases. The first phase was one of data and information
gathering. It started with a review of relevant documents made available electronically by UNDP,
FAO, the Project Management Unit and the OKACOM Interim Secretariat.
In addition, relevant
websites were also visited and studied.
Soon after its arrival in Pretoria, the team received
extensive briefings and additional documentation from the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator.
Following this, the team embarked on a broad programme of consultations with key stakeholders in
each of the three riparian states namely, Angola, Namibia and Botswana. The aim was to capture
as broad a catchment of views and opinions as possible within the time available.
The second phase focused on analysis, discussion and drafting by the team. During this phase, the
team shared preliminary conclusions and drafts with key stakeholders and sought advice on any
errors of fact, or omissions, or inaccuracies.
This phase concluded with the production of a
preliminary draft version of the report which was released for comments by UNDP.
11
The third and final phase refined the draft in the light of the comments received, and produced this
final report. Information provided in the comments received was used substantially in revising the
draft. Where no specific source is given for information from one or other of the stakeholders, this
information would have come from comments which are kept on file.
Guidance provided by GEF and UNDP, was adhered to by the team in undertaking this interim
evaluation. As noted in the Acknowledgements, the team benefited greatly from the wide spectrum
of views, opinions and advice that it received during the course of its work.
However, the
conclusions reached and the recommendations made, represent the independent views of the team
members alone.
1.4.3 Documents reviewed and consulted
The evaluation team was provided with an initial list of documents in the Terms of Reference.
Further advice on relevant documents, as well as the documents themselves in most cases, were
provided by UNDP, FAO, the PMU and the OKACOM Interim Secretariat. The evaluation team
sought additional documentation to provide us with the background to the project, insights into
project implementation and management, a record of project outputs, etc. The full list of documents
reviewed and/or consulted by the team is in Annex 3.
The annex also contains a short list of the websites that were visited and reviewed.
1.4.4 Consultations
Consultations by the evaluation team took place primarily in the three capital cities namely, Luanda,
Windhoek and Gaborone. However, brief visits were also undertaken to Pretoria and Maun and a
number of meetings were held there as well.
The team consulted over 60 individuals in all. These ranged from the key stakeholders (OKACOM
Commissioners and OBSC members, UNDP and GEF) to project personnel (past and present),
various government officials and technical specialists dealing with water and related issues, NGOs,
and personnel from other projects working in the Okavango Basin. Most meetings followed the
same pattern, namely, a brief introduction on the purpose of the mission followed by an identification
of the relationship that the consultee had with the project, if any, and his/her views on the project
and its problems.
Particular emphasis was placed on the role and performance of the PSC,
OKACOM, UNDP, FAO, the Project Manager and the Governments. When appropriate, consultees
were asked about their country's policies, strategies, laws and regulations for sustainable water
resources management. A series of telephone consultations with key individuals was conducted
and the team also posed written questions to some key stakeholders. The evaluation team gave an
undertaking that the sources of information will not be disclosed unless this was important for the
report and in such cases, only with the agreement of the source.
A full list of persons met and consulted by the evaluation team is to be found in Annex 4.
12
2
THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
This section deals specifically with the project as portrayed in the Project Document.
2.1
Project start and duration
OKACOM and its partners, through the three Governments of Angola, Namibia and Botswana,
applied for GEF funding support in 1996. This was approved and the GEF Preparatory Phase ran
from 1997 to 2000.
The full project was approved by the GEF Council in August 2000 but it was
only in April 2003 that it was rendered effective following signatures of the Project Document by all
parties. The full project suffered further delays and it only started in November 2004.
The project was planned to last for three years so it was expected to come to an end at the end of
2007. However, the project faced a number of problems since initiation especially with the setting
up of project operations, including the identification and rehabilitation of office space, the
establishment of a field office, and staff recruitment.
Delays in this establishment phase have
retarded other project interventions and delivery rate has been below 20%.
The Project Manager resigned in October 2005 (with effect from March 2006) and following the
second PSC meeting in November 2005, UNDP decided to halt any new project activities pending
the outcome of this evaluation. Ideally, this should have been a collective decision by the PSC,
however, in the circumstances, UNDP could not rely on the PSC. If restarted, the project will have
around 2-3 years to run.
2.2
Problems that the project seeks to address
According to the ProDoc, the draft TDA which was produced during the PDF-B phase, found that
the natural resources of the basin are already subject to demands for water and land from
agriculture, and urban and industrial development, from both within and outside the Basin. These
demands are already resulting in modified water quantity, quality and sediment flows and raise the
issue of minimum requirements if the Basin is to continue to furnish its environmental benefits and
maintain a critical stock of freshwater assets.
However, the national institutional and policy
responses to date have focused exclusively on supply management and in financial, economic and
environmental terms, this approach is not sustainable. If these threats are not addressed through a
coordinated management approach, irreversible changes in the Basin's water balance, and
hydrochemical and hydrogeomorphological impacts are anticipated.
Such changes will in turn
impact the productivity and environmental integrity of the Basin as a whole.
The ProDoc identified the proximate cause of environmental degradation as three-fold unplanned
abstraction from watercourses and aquifers, increased effluent disposal and non-point pollution
sources, and the accelerated erosion of land hydrogeomorphologically linked to the Basin. But the
root causes lie with patterns of socio-economic development population growth, urbanisation and
industrialisation. Key factors in these trends include : over-grazing which is already resulting in
accelerated land and soil degradation in Namibia and Botswana; unplanned development in Angola
along de-mined transport corridors in the Cubango and Cuito sub-basins as the peace process re-
settlement occurs; and pressure for new and increased abstraction of raw water to service urban
expansion and irrigated agriculture. It is anticipated that these factors will continue to accelerate
new demand for raw surface and groundwater in the Basin and its immediate region, and accelerate
the process of land use conversion for subsistence agriculture.
13
2.3
Overall and Immediate Objectives of the project
According to the ProDoc, the overall project objective is :
To alleviate imminent and long-term threats to the linked land and water systems of the
Okavango River through the joint management of the Okavango River Basin water
resources and the protection of its linked aquatic ecosystems, comprising all wetlands,
fluvial and lacustrine systems, and their biological diversity.
A two-stage approach has been adopted. Stage 1, the subject of this intervention, will involve the
preparation of the SAP. Stage 2, the subject of a subsequent intervention, will involve implementation
of the SAP.
The ProDoc further explains that the purpose of the project during Stage 1 is threefold :
First - to overcome current policy, institutional, human resource and information barriers
and constraints to coordination and joint management of the Basin
Second
-
to complete a transboundary analysis to underpin a programme of joint
management
Third - to facilitate the formulation of an implementable programme of joint management to
address threats to the Basin's linked land and water systems. A Strategic Action Programme
(SAP) approach will be used as the programming instrument for the project
These three "purposes" of the project provide the framework for the three Components of the project
and can be considered as its three immediate objectives.
2.4
Main stakeholders
The ProDoc notes that many public organisations as well as individual scientific and research
institutions and consultants have invested their resources in understanding and analysing the
Okavango Basin. The ProDoc also refers to schools, colleges, research institutions, and NGOs in
the Basin as having a high degree of interest in an Okavango initiative. However, it failed to identify
specifically who the key stakeholders in the project were. It then makes a commitment to involve
various stakeholders in project monitoring, evaluation, and implementation through numerous
consultations and workshops and improved internet access among stakeholders. The ProDoc also
dedicates an annex to the subject, entitled Public Involvement Plan Summary, and makes mention
of ways in which to involve the stakeholders. However, the evaluation team was informed that no
Public Involvement Plan was prepared by the project before its activities were halted.
Based on their perceived degree of influence on the project and their expressed interest in it, the
evaluation team identified the following as the key stakeholders for the purpose of consultations :
The OKACOM Commissioners, members of the OBSC, and the interim OKACOM Secretariat; GEF;
FAO (at Rome HQ, at Accra Regional and at Country levels); UNDP Country Offices; personnel of
the Project Management Unit, past and present and others associated with the project; the
management, technical and scientific communities in each riparian State, especially those with
responsibilities for water planning and management; and, local NGOs which have not been very
involved to date.
2.5
Results expected
The ProDoc foresees the End of Project Situation as one where :
14
Key institutional barriers to integrated management will have been overcome.
Broad awareness about the state of the basin will have been raised at the national, regional
and international levels. This will draw attention of decision makers to the critical planning
needs and guarantee political and financial support for SAP implementation.
OKACOM will have been strengthened as both a political forum for involving key high level
government officials to negotiate the sharing of transboundary water and as an initiator of
policy shifts at national and regional level.
There will be in place -
o
mechanisms for consultation, communication, and participation in all three riparian
countries;
o
an updateable knowledge base;
o
policy initiatives launched and cross sectoral integration mechanisms established;
o
a joint programme for management of the basin;
o
natural resource management capacity built at regional and national level;
o
finance mobilised for SAP implementation and beyond.
The project will have demonstrated new collaborative approaches to transboundary water
management that are based on open understanding and consensus while also fulfilling the
countries' stated desires to understand and protect the basin in order to meet a potentially
divergent range of national interests including disparate levels of socio-economic
development, nature conservation, and eco-tourism.
Explicit links between this International Waters project and the GEF's biodiversity focal area
are anticipated and will be articulated in the SAP. This is particularly the case in Botswana
where natural resource conservation activities will be promoted on the basis of the water
resource management analysis carried out in the project.
In addition, the LogFrame Matrix in Annex 3 of the ProDoc, lists the following as indicators of the
satisfactory achievement of the three components :
Consultative fora established
Enabling environment (policy, law institutions and human resources) enhanced
Public and private sector capacity to implement SAP
OKACOM review completed and internalised
Completed TDA
SAP endorsed and financed
Unfortunately, the project had made no significant progress towards any of the above targets or
indicators by the time activities were halted.
15
3
FINDINGS : PROJECT FORMULATION
This section deals specifically with the formulation phase of the project as evidenced by the ProDoc
and supplemented by additional information made available to the evaluation team.
3.1
Ownership
This is a project of the Governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia whose relationship with the
project is through their Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM). As Pinheiro et.
al.1 explain, it was OKACOM that developed the project concept and approached GEF through
UNDP for assistance.
OKACOM is identified as the project's Coordinating Agency while Angola is designated as the lead
country in the ProDoc and accepted to serve as the host for the PMU.
From the indications
available to the evaluation team, it can certainly be said that OKACOM sees itself as the project
owner. The evaluation team is impressed by the high degree of ownership shown in this project by
OKACOM and others in the three riparian states.
However, the ProDoc leaves no doubt that GEF also sees itself as co-owner of the project when it
states that "In all documentation, information, signage, and written and oral communication, this
project will be referred to by the title "GEF Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management
of the Okavango River Basin". All project documentation, information, signage, and written and oral
communication material related to this project must carry such project title together with the logo of
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the acknowledgement "This project is partially (fully)
funded by a grant from the Global Environment Facility
(GEF)."
The GEF logo and the
acknowledgement must be at least of equivalent size to any other logo or acknowledgement
appearing on any documentation, information material, signature, or communication material and
must appear first."
The team feels that in effect this project is a partnership between GEF and the Governments
through OKACOM and the benefits are mutual.
3.2
Project logic and design
The project logic for GEF is that there are global environmental benefits to be gained in addition to
the national ones. The global benefits will accrue through the transboundary nature of the work
which will be implemented by the project for the TDA and the SAP.
However, this is not an
evaluation of the GEF-ability of the project and the extent to which it satisfies the usual GEF
requirements these matters would have been addressed during the STAP review of the original
project brief and the project would have been accepted as satisfying GEF criteria and requirements.
The project is designed according to the classical approach taken by GEF for this type of
intervention. According to the Training course on the TDA/SAP Approach in the GEF International
Waters Programme2, "the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) is a scientific and technical
fact-finding analysis used to scale the relative importance of sources, causes and impacts of
transboundary waters problems. It should be an objective assessment and not a negotiated
document". On the other hand, the "SAP is a negotiated policy document which should identify
policy, legal and institutional reforms and investments needed to address the priority transboundary
problems".
The evaluation team was told that it seems that GEF has only one model and that it is
1 Pinheiro, Isidro, Gabaake Gabaake and Piet Heyns (2002) Cooperation in the Okavango River Basin: The OKACOM
perspective. Chapter 5 in Turton, Anthony (Ed) (2002) Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development :
Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango Basin. African Waters Issues Research Unit, Pretoria
2 Training course on the TDA/SAP approach in the GEF International Waters Programme (undated) Trainee Manual
Module 1 : Overview of the TDA/SAP Process.
16
expected to fit all circumstances, and that this is not right. The team was told that there is a need
for different approaches to fit different circumstances such as those faced by Angola in the period
immediately following a civil war.
At this first phase, the project design comprises the two main elements, namely the TDA and a SAP.
The TDA will provide the required physical and socio-economic models across the whole Basin
needed to facilitate joint management based on wide participation and the removal of institutional
barriers. The SAP will structure diverse inputs and identify the specific resources necessary for
implementation of the transboundary elements of the Environmental Assessment and the Integrated
Management Plan which are targeted by OKACOM. The second phase of the project, which will be
the subject of a separate intervention, will support the implementation of the SAP.
The project
provides for a process of formal endorsement of the SAP by the participating governments, support
to the translation of SAP provisions into national policy and legislation, and the mobilisation of
institutional and investment resources for its implementation.
According to the ProDoc, the TDA will provide an analysis of priority transboundary environmental
problems, identify the scale and causes of degradation (proximate, intermediate and root),
information gaps, policy distortions and institutional deficiencies. The formulation of the SAP will be
driven by a consultative process with stakeholders and enabled by policy, legal, institutional and
financial commitments.
When finalised through a series of consultative workshops, the SAP
approach will be instrumental in defining and driving the necessary policy and financial
commitments in the short to medium term. The SAP will establish clear priorities that are endorsed
at the highest levels of each of the three governments and widely disseminated.
Priority
transboundary concerns will be identified, as well as sectoral interventions (including, policy
changes, programme development, regulatory reform and capacity-building investments) needed to
resolve the transboundary problems as well as regional and national institutional mechanisms for
implementing elements of the SAP. Coordination of priorities with those identified under the climate
change and biodiversity focal areas will be undertaken during the SAP formulation. The countries
and the GEF will agree on the baseline environmental commitments (which should be funded
domestically or through donors or loans) and activities that are additional for solving the
transboundary priority problems. A major donor conference will be held when the SAP is in the draft
stage to facilitate international commitments to action.
As noted above, this is a standard approach adopted widely by GEF for its International Waters
projects.
Presumably, the experience gained from past projects was the guide in setting the
timescale for the project at three years. However, in the circumstances the project faces, it seems
that this timescale is unrealistic. This issue is discussed further below, however, it is noted here as
a possible design fault in the project and one which will require attention.
3.3
Linkages between the project and other interventions
The ProDoc refers to on-going initiatives in the Basin. For example, in Angola it mentions that the
World Bank was preparing a national Water Sector Development Project which was expected to
channel resources for water supply and sanitation to major provincial capitals, Cabinda, Lubango,
Lobito-Benguela, Luanda and Namibe, but it adds that none of these is in Cuando-Cubango
province.
In Botswana the ProDoc reports that the Government is committed to the implementation of its 8th
National Development Plan for the period 1997/8-2002/03 which anticipates various capital
development projects and studies, some of which are related to water management in the vicinity of
the Okavango Delta. These national plans include; Major Village Water/Sanitation Development;
Groundwater Studies and Protection; Hydrological Support including updating of the Okavango
Forecasting Model; and International Water Planning and Development.
For Namibia, the ProDoc notes that the First National Development Plan for the period 1995/6-
1999/2000, focuses on health and education sectors with a programme of rural water supply and
17
sanitation supported by GTZ, and that additional community development activities were carried out
by Namibian and international NGOs.
It also mentions that a World Bank/GTZ/UNDP Water
Resource Management Review had been launched in early 1998 and that elements of this were to
be directly related to transboundary water issues, including the Okavango.
The analysis of incremental costs in Annex 2 of the ProDoc is somewhat more extensive in its
reference to on-going initiatives. However, the main purpose of the discussion is to identify the
value of the baseline.
Having mentioned these other initiatives, the ProDoc fails to identify linkages that the project
may/should have with them, whether there are any mutual benefits to be gained from cooperation,
or whether there are any lessons that could have arisen from them.
3.4
Implementation and institutional framework
The Project is executed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on
behalf of UNDP which is the GEF Implementing Agency and "Execution will be based on the rules
and procedures established by the United Nations System".
The figure below, taken from the ProDoc is meant to illustrate the relationships between the key
stakeholders in terms of project governance.
General Framework for project implementation (from the Project Document)
Cabinet (Angola)
Cabinet (Botswana)
Cabinet (Namibia)
OKACOM
OBSC
PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)
OBSC, UNDP, FAO, PMU
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT (PMU)
NCU (Angola)
NCU (Botswana)
NCU (Namibia)
The ProDoc noted that "OKACOM will continue in its role as the inter-governmental mechanism for
co-ordination, delegating specific tasks to OBSC and linking high-level policy and decision-makers
from the three Okavango basin countries". According to the ProDoc, the PSC "will have overall
responsibility for the project and will provide management and financial guidance".
18
The ProDoc noted also that the Project Management Unit (PMU) "will be appointed by the PSC and
will work under its guidance to oversee day to day implementation of project activities". UNDP/GEF
acceded to the decision by OKACOM that the PMU will be based in Luanda, Angola.
Specific line ministry coordination and multidisciplinary collaboration, including national NGOs, will
be undertaken at country level by the National Co-ordination Units (NCUs).
The relationship between these layers of governance, as illustrated in the diagram above, is not
accurate and it has led to misunderstandings.
Unfortunately, by showing the Governments,
OKACOM and OBSC above the PSC, the diagram gave the wrong impression regarding the
supreme nature of the PSC.
3.5
Stakeholder participation in project formulation
FAO advised the evaluation team that all Government inputs in project design and formulation were
channelled exclusively through the OBSC, the delegated sub-committee of OKACOM.
National
OBSC members were active in providing and facilitating much technical information during the PDF
`B' phase. Formal meetings of OBSC were then used to review the draft TDA and negotiate and
finalize the project brief and the project document. The bulk of the support and input was noted as
having come from Namibia.
The ProDoc reports that the consultation process set up during the PDF work provided a clear
message that education, participation and consultation had to go hand in hand. Both community
members and leaders expressed the opinion that they would not be able to participate in the
consultative process if they did not have a good grasp of all the issues. Schools, colleges, research
institutions, and NGOs in the basin expressed a high degree of interest in the initiative and a
number of stakeholder meetings and consultations were held. The project made provision for a
significant education, training, and information effort to be included.
3.6
Conclusions on project formulation and design
The evaluation team concludes that the high level of ownership of the project by OKACOM and
OBSC, together with the positive views of those working on parallel projects in the Basin, augur well
for the success of the project if it were to be restarted. Virtually all that we have spoken to said that
the project must continue. Many, especially those representing community level stakeholders and
potential beneficiaries, have great expectations for the project. The team detected some sadness
and anguish that the project got to the point where its activities had to be halted, but we also felt that
maybe stakeholders are now prepared to move on. The team was told that "the project must not
close the people of the Okavango Basin need the project".
This is a simple model which has been successfully applied in many other projects and as such, the
project design is basically sound and, in principle, the project should be viable.
The original
Objectives (or components) of the project are still valid and in spite of the initiatives that have been
implemented in the meantime, the GEF project is still relevant since none have created the
overarching and holistic context for management from a basin-wide perspective, that the GEF
project is targeting in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
If the project is restarted, the opportunity should be taken to rephase and rebudget the project, but
not necessarily redesign it. Maybe the emphasis should be shifted away from the TDA and more to
the SAP component. The TDA must be completed in the shortest possible time and if gaps are
identified, it should not be essential to wait until they are filled gaps can be recorded and the SAP
can provide the activities that will fill the gaps at the operational phase. The team also feel that to
19
the extent possible, the emphasis of the project should be shifted from the capital cities to the Basin
which is where the natural resources are and where those that rely on them, live. For example, the
TDA activities that are to be carried out by the NCUs could be based in Menongue, Rundu and
Maun respectively.
4
FINDINGS : PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
This section reports the findings of the evaluation team on the manner in which the project has been
implemented, administered and managed.
4.1
Project governance
4.1.1
General governance issues
Many of the problems with governance can be traced to the confusion that exists regarding roles
and responsibilities of individual stakeholders as well as a lack of clear understanding of the
objectives, constraints, procedures and processes of the GEF.
The three Governments agreed, contractually, to receive GEF funds and to abide by the procedures
of the implementing agency, namely UNDP, according to their respective Standard Basic
Assistance Agreements (SBAA) with UNDP. These procedures comprise the legal basis for the
project. On its part, UNDP contracted a sister organization from within the UN family, FAO, to
execute the project.
Angola was identified as the lead country in the ProDoc. This is in respect of the UNDP Country
Office and to a lesser extent, the FAO Country Office.
In reflection of this "centre of gravity" status
of Angola, the Government of Angola and the Angolan OKACOM Commissioners were also
assigned a lead role by their peers. However, from the project governance perspective, Angola is
but one of the three Governments that have equally committed themselves to the project. Each of
the three Governments has equal rights, responsibilities and powers in respect of the project. It is
therefore more accurate to refer to Angola as the host country (for the PMU) rather than the lead
country, and this role does not comprise any direct project management responsibilities.
As discussed elsewhere, the implementation arrangements illustrated in the ProDoc created
problems for the governance of the project since they could be interpreted as requiring the PSC to
report to OKACOM. The team believes that this was not intended since it would negate the position
of the PSC as the highest governance body for the project.
Having said that, the special
relationship that OKACOM has with this project, must be recognized and this is discussed in the
following sections below. This is borne out by the fact that country level involvement in project
implementation has been effected almost exclusively by the OKACOM Commissioners and the
OBSC members acting upon the mandate given them by their respective Governments3.
4.1.2
Policy and guidance the Project Steering Committee
The Project Steering Committee sets the policy for the project and provides guidance and directions
to the Project Manager and other project stakeholders. It also supports UNDP which maintains
ultimate accountability to the GEF for the delivery of project products and the administration of
project funds. Project funds are administered as per the Standard Basic Assistance Agreements
between UNDP and the Programme countries, which govern the use of UNDP funds. UNDP and
3 Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of Namibia
on the Establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission. 1994
20
the three Governments form part of and respect PSC decisions and agreements. If a situation
arises where UNDP feels that its mandate or its accountability could be compromised by a decision
of the PSC, it should attempt to resolve the matter by negotiation taking into account the signed
ProDoc and the SBAA, before it considers other action.
The PSC must be recognized as the highest governance body for the project (see diagram on page
25). Decisions made at the PSC are final and they must not be re-litigated, except by being brought
back to the PSC. Ideally, in spite of any disagreements around the PSC table, once a decision is
made, it should be supported by all members when outside the meeting room. It is important to
provide a united, collective direction and guidance to the PM and others who are implementing the
project.
From all accounts, the PSC, which met twice in the life of this project, has so far failed to perform as
expected.
Problems were identified with the Terms of Reference provided by the ProDoc but
attempts to overcome these problems did not succeed.
Annex 5 contains proposed new Terms of Reference for the PSC. The proposed ToRs suggest that
the PSC will comprise :
One representative from each of the participating Governments : Angola, Botswana and
Namibia (OKACOM Co-chairs or as the Governments so decide)
One representative for UNDP at Country Office level (suggested Resident Representative or
Country Director from Angola Country Office as the lead UNDP CO)
One representative from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit
One representative from FAO as Executing Agency
The following will also be invited / expected to attend meetings :
Other members of OKACOM
Project Manager required to attend and report on progress
Project Budget Holder required to attend and present financial account
Members of OBSC to advise on technical issues that may arise
Relevant representatives of related projects in the Okavango Basin to advise on cooperative
and complementary activities
PSC members may nominate an identified alternate who will attend PSC meetings in the event that
the designated representative is unable to attend. Alternates will be expected to be fully briefed and
able to make decisions on behalf of the permanent member. It is also expected that the alternate
will report back fully to the designated representative.
PSC business will be conducted on a consensus basis.
According to the proposed Rules of Procedure, the PSC, which will be co-chaired by the UNDP-
Angola Resident Representative or Country Director as well as an OKACOM Commissioner, will
meet at least every six months and more frequently if considered necessary. Meetings will rotate
between the participating countries, taking into account logistical and resource considerations. The
agenda for each meeting, which is to be prepared by the PM in consultation with the co-Chairs and
which should reflect issues raised by members, should be available in good time to permit adequate
consultation before the meeting.
4.1.3 Role of UNDP as the Implementing Agency
As implementing agency, UNDP is responsible to the GEF for the timely and cost-effective delivery
of the agreed project outputs.
It achieves this through its understandings with the participating
Governments and its contractual arrangement with FAO as executing agency.
UNDP has an
obligation to ensure accountability, and its efforts in this respect are spearheaded by the Principal
Project Country Office, which in the case of this project is its office in Angola.
Within the UNDP
system, the Angola Country Office has been delegated with legal responsibility for the GEF funds.
21
The UNDP Resident Representative in Angola may approve, following consultation and agreement
with the UNDP/GEF Regional Office and the Government signatories to the project document,
revisions or additions to any of the annexes of the ProDoc, revisions which do not involve significant
changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, and mandatory annual
revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due
to inflation or to take into account agency expenditure flexibility.
The UNDP Resident
Representative in Angola also chairs the Annual Tripartite Review, coordinates inputs from the
participating UNDP Country Offices into the annual Project Implementation Review for submission
to UNDP/GEF, ensures that project objectives are advanced through the policy dialogue with the
Government of Angola, and undertakes official transmission of reports to the GEF focal points of the
participating countries.
The UNDP Country Offices in Botswana and Namibia, have a lesser role than that of the Country
Office in Angola, but they are still required to act as the project focal point, in coordination with the
PMU and FAO, for all national stakeholders, ensuring prompt sharing and transparency of
information, provide networking support services through the PSC by linking the project with
relevant national initiatives, provide inputs into the annual GEF Project Implementation Review,
maintain close links with the national FAO Offices, provide logistical support for national workshops,
as needed, participate in the annual Tri-Partite Review, ensure that project objectives are advanced
through UNDP's policy dialogue with the Government, and undertake the official transmission of
reports to country GEF focal points.
The work of the UNDP Country Offices is supported by the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination
Office, which also provides coordination within the whole UNDP/GEF portfolio of projects for the
region.
More specifically, the UNDP/GEF Regional Office provides technical support to UNDP
Country Offices and Government GEF Operational Focal Points, assists the executing agency with
the recruitment of senior project personnel, approves the project inception report and terminal
reports, reviews budget revisions prior to signature, follows up closely on implementation progress,
assures the eligibility of project interventions in light of GEF policy guidance and approved project
design, represents UNDP/GEF on the PSC, and approves Annual Project Implementation Reports,
including performance ratings, for submission to GEF.
It was pointed out to the team that the GEF
requirements can be quite onerous and bureaucratic at times and quite inflexible; and to some,
UNDP appeared as if "dictating". It was suggested that if GEF's approach could be flexible enough
to reflect and respect local circumstances, it is likely that this will ease the somewhat critical views
held by some stakeholders of UNDP/GEF.
From records of meetings and other documents made available to the evaluation team it would
appear that the greater part of the UNDP input to the project proceedings has come from the
UNDP/GEF Regional Office. UNDP-Namibia also played an active role but the input from both the
Principal Project Country Office in Angola4 and the Country Office in Botswana, has been somewhat
limited. The evaluation team was told that resources were limited in UNDP Country Offices and that
this often hampered a higher degree of participation. However, the team was also advised that as a
GEF Implementing Agency, UNDP receives a fee aimed at reimbursing the costs of project
development and supervision, and for monitoring project implementation.
UNDP-Angola needs to take a more proactive role in monitoring and supporting the project and in
communicating with its sister offices in Gaborone and Windhoek. In order to do this effectively, the
office personnel resources dedicated to the environment theme will need to be strengthened. A
close working relationship with the PMU could be instrumental in reversing the weak delivery rate
experienced by the project thus far and which is "dragging down" the Country Offices' performance
ratings.
UNDP advised the team that it has had difficulty with the administrative procedures that have been
used by FAO in executing the project and which have contributed to the low delivery rate by the
project. These are discussed fully under Section 4.2 below where the role of FAO as executing
agency is considered.
However, as quite rightly pointed out by FAO, UNDP clearly noted in
4 Where the focus has been on post-war rehabilitation, poverty and governance
22
correspondence that "where reference is made in the Project Document to the employment of UN
system guidelines for administrative and other services, we would fully expect that FAO will use its
own rules and procedures. This will include audit procedures. Note that FAO's responsibilities in this
regard are governed by the Standard Basic Executing Agency Agreement (SBEAA) signed between
FAO and UNDP". In the event, this generic understanding has not been adequate for this project
and it is not enough for UNDP to say they are unhappy with the administrative processes applied by
FAO. There is a need for specific improvements, even if some FAO policies may need to be set
aside e.g. the involvement of a regional office and the frequency and formats of the financial
reports. It is essential that the agreed arrangements between UNDP and FAO are recorded in a
formal Memorandum of Understanding specific to this project.
4.1.4
Role of OKACOM
The Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) was established by the
Governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia in 19945. According to Pinheiro et. al6., the first
major achievement of OKACOM, barely nine months after its formation, was to develop a proposal
for a project to carry out an environmental assessment of the Okavango Basin and to develop an
integrated water resources management strategy.
OKACOM set up OBSC originally to manage
this project.
OKACOM approached the GEF, through UNDP, to help fund the proposed project and GEF made
available project development funds to carry out a transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and
prepare a project brief. After some delays, this was followed by further financial assistance by the
GEF to the three riparian Governments to finalize the TDA and formulate a Strategic Action
Programme (SAP).
Quite rightly, OKACOM sees this as its project and it has a high stake in it. And, while from the
UNDP/GEF perspective it is a project of the three riparian Governments it is evident that the
Governments are working through OKACOM for the purpose of this project.
OKACOM decided to be represented on the PSC by the OBSC which was not empowered to make
or support decisions. OKACOM co-Chairs received reports from their OBSC colleagues following
PSC meetings and at times may have felt that some decisions that had been finalized by the PSC
required further investigations and discussion. Unfortunately, this resulted in the decisions being
reversed unilaterally by OKACOM following each of the two PSC meetings. This has undermined
the PSC, placed the PM in an untenable position, and jeopardised the role of UNDP as the
organization accountable to GEF for the funding that has been received.
These misunderstandings may have arisen from the ProDoc where the role of OKACOM in project
implementation is not entirely consistent.
For example, on page 11, the ProDoc says "This
initiative will be driven by OKACOM in which the countries transboundary technical and policy
analysis functions are invested and who will be responsible for co-ordinating formulation of the SAP
and its subsequent implementation".
However, on page 20, it says - "The Project Steering
Committee (PSC) will have overall responsibility for the project and will provide management and
financial guidance. The PSC will be instrumental in feeding back initiatives and identifying
investment opportunities in the SAP through the OBSC to OKACOM".
Once again, on page 12 the ProDoc says "To initiate all outputs, OKACOM will establish a small
appropriate project executive office, a Project Management Unit (PMU), together with national
counterparts in National Co-ordination Units (NCUs)",
and this is followed on page21 by the
statement that "The Project Management Unit, (PMU) will be appointed by the PSC and will work
5 Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of Namibia
on the Establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission. 1994
6 Pinheiro, Isidro, Gabaake Gabaake and Piet Heyns (2002) Cooperation in the Okavango River Basin: The OKACOM
perspective. Chapter 5 in Turton, Anthony (Ed) (2002) Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development :
Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango Basin. African Waters Issues Research Unit, Pretoria
23
under its guidance to oversee day to day implementation of project activities. The PMU will play the
primary role in ensuring co-ordination of the project with other relevant activities in the region".
Given that the PSC must be accepted by all stakeholders as the highest governance body for the
project, and in recognition that OKACOM is the originator of the project concept and the most direct
beneficiary of the project, the evaluation team believes that the three OKACOM Co-Chairs should
serve as members of the PSC and that they take it in turn to co-chair the PSC meeting together with
the UNDP Angola Resident Representative.
4.1.5
Conclusions on project governance
Many of the problems with governance can be traced to the confusion that exists regarding roles
and responsibilities of individual stakeholders as well as a lack of clear understanding of the
objectives, constraints, procedures and processes of the GEF.
The PSC must be recognized and supported by all stakeholders as the highest governance body for
the project. As such, it must have both the authority and the power to set policy for the project and
to monitor its performance.
By confirming and accepting that the PSC is the highest body for
governance of the project, and that issues and disagreements are brought to the PSC for resolution,
stakeholders will avoid issues becoming personalized, which is what caused the downfall of the
project.
The membership of the PSC must include all the key stakeholders, in particular the Governments of
Angola, Botswana and Namibia represented by their OKACOM Co-Chairs or as the Governments
may decide. UNDP/GEF as the funding source, UNDP as the organization that is accountable for
the GEF funds, and FAO which is the organization entrusted with the execution of the project, make
up the other members of the PSC which will be co-chaired by UNDP and OKACOM and will conduct
its business by consensus. The Project Manager, with the support of the Project Budget Holder, will
be required to attend PSC meetings and inform the PSC. Other OKACOM Commissioners and
OBSC members should also attend to assist with technical and other matters.
Likewise, NCU
Coordinators (if available) and representatives from other related projects in the Basin would be
welcome to attend and inform the PSC.
As implementing agency, UNDP must be more proactive, and in particular the country offices need
to be more engaged. Of these, the Principal Country Office in Angola must assume the lead role in
supporting and monitoring the project through the PMU. Furthermore, UNDP needs to take a more
assertive stance in its requirements of FAO in the delivery of its contractual obligations and this
needs to be the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding specific to this project.
The diagram on the following page illustrates the frameworks for project governance and project
implementation, as proposed by the evaluation team showing proposed roles and responsibilities.
24
Project Governance and Implementation/Operational frameworks showing proposed roles
and responsibilities
GOVERNANCE LEVEL
PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE
Govts of Angola, Botswana, Namibia thru' 3
Other
OKACOM Co-Chairs, UNDP, GEF and FAO
OBSC
OKACOM
Co-Chairs : UNDP Res Rep (Angola) with the
Technical
members
OKACOM country Commissioner on rotation
Advice
UNDP
financial
Country Offices
reporting
PSC
pro
v
FAO
ide
s
Budget
p
ress
o
Holder
licy
prog
an
FAO
on
d
ts
Technical
gu
idan
Support
repor
ce
financial
PM
management
support
OPERATIONAL/IMPLEMENTATION
LEVEL
advice &
support &
support
monitoring
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
UNIT
under PM
leadership
PM coordination
Component 1
thru' consultant
Institution Building
NCU
NCU
NCU
Angola
Botswana
Namibia
Component 2
technical
input with
TDA
OBSC
thru' consultant
TTT
Component 3
coordination
OKACOM
facilitation
SAP
Secretariat
25
4.2
Project administration
4.2.1
The role of FAO as the Executing Agency
FAO has a contractual arrangement with UNDP to facilitate, support, administer and execute the
project so as to achieve the stated objectives and outputs. As the project Executing Agency, FAO
has the overall responsibility and accountability for the delivery of all the technical, financial,
operational and administrative services to achieve the stated outputs and objectives.
As it advised the evaluation team, FAO sees itself as having three roles in particular:
"Technical: the technical role of FAO is to ensure that all project activities are conducted according
to the highest technical standards and in a timely manner.
FAO deploys its subject specialists
across the full range of project outputs. World class expertise in natural resource management,
agricultural practice, economics and international water law are available in-house to respond to
project requests.
Operational: the operational role can be summarized as to ensure effective and efficient project
management in order to allow the implementation of all activities as envisaged in the project
document, its annexes and annual work plans, in support of the technical role described above. This
includes consultation with and substantive reporting to the parties involved.
Administrative: to support the technical and operational roles, including smooth implementation of
all activities, from personnel to procurement, to general project administration, and financial
services, including reporting on financial accountability. FAO rules and regulations are to be
applied."
The choice of FAO as executing agency has been questioned and it was felt that it may not be the
best organization to be assigned the task. According to the ProDoc, three criteria were applied for
the selection of FAO as the executing agency. Each of these is discussed below with the evaluation
team's observations.
1] Familiarity with rules and procedures prescribed by UNDP for project execution -
The evaluation team was advised that while FAO may have been familiar with the rules and
procedures of UNDP, they finished up applying their own which are different and which were difficult
to harmonize with those of UNDP. It would seem that "familiarity" with the UNDP procedures is not
enough and "similarity" may have been a more appropriate requirement.
2] Knowledge of the thematic focal areas, to be addressed by the Okavango IW project,
particularly irrigation technology, agriculture within the context of river basin management
and land degradation -
The evaluation team was told that FAO no doubt has knowledge of irrigation technology, agriculture
and land degradation. However, the likely scope of the SAP is broader than this and could include
mining, tourism, biodiversity conservation, energy, etc. Presumably, if this expertise is needed it
cannot be expected to be provided by FAO in-house capacity and will be contracted in. In the same
way, so could expertise in irrigation, agriculture and land degradation had another organization been
engaged as Executing Agency.
3] Operational presence in the region, with an office in Angola -
FAO has an office in each of Luanda, Windhoek and Gaborone. While the Luanda office appears
reasonably well-resourced, those in Windhoek and Botswana (the Country Representative is
resident in Harare) are not adequately resourced and none of the offices seem to be empowered to
contribute to the project either technically or operationally.
FAO decided to base the Budget Holder and administrative support for this project at its Regional
Office in Accra, Ghana, following a corporate policy to decentralize field operations. This created an
additional administrative layer for project management and FAO did not identify any additional value
26
contributed to the project by the regional office in Accra, when invited to do so. Instead it listed the
rationale for progressively decentralizing field operations, as follows:
Project operations and the technical support should be brought closer to the concerned countries
(as a guiding principle, FAO technical support should be made available from the office closest to
the location where the project inputs are required, subject to the availability of the relevant
technical expertise).
The proximity between the BH and the project facilitates monitoring and operational backstopping.
The BH develops a "regional" experience and can more easily apply the lessons learned of other
projects in similar contexts.
The decentralization has also helped reduce the indirect operations costs of the Organization
which, as it is the case for other UN agencies, are not entirely recovered through the Project
Servicing Cost (10% in the case of this project).
Based on this rationale it would be more in keeping with FAO policy and common sense to move
the Budget Holder and all administrative support for this project to the FAO office in Luanda.
However, as noted above, FAO country offices do not appear to be sufficiently empowered to
provide the necessary support to a regional project such as this.
In the circumstances, the
evaluation team believes that the office of Budget Holder could be based at HQ in Rome thus
bringing together the administrative and technical support to the project. However, the evaluation
team believes that what is more important, and regardless of where the Budget Holder is located, is
that the PM is provided with the delegation, powers and flexibility to do the job.
As noted above, FAO charges a servicing fee known as the Project Servicing Cost, and this
amounts to 10% of the project budget.
This is in common with all UN agencies and it covers
administrative services (such as recruitment and servicing, procurement and contracts, budgeting,
accounting, reporting, custody of funds, etc) as well as operational services (such as expert
identification, supervision and monitoring, specifications for equipment, etc).
In addition, the ProDoc identified the sum of $150,000 as an in-kind contribution by FAO to the
project.
According to FAO, this was the value of the contribution by the Lead Technical Unit which
"coordinated detailed review and advice from subject specialists in environmental economics,
remote sensing, soils, integrated pest management, fisheries, forestry, water law and land tenure
upon request from the Project Manager".
This could not be ascertained and in any case the
statement may be a bit premature since the project had not become fully operational before
activities were halted by UNDP.
FAO also noted that the in-kind contribution "also includes the time provided by FAO technical staff,
not charged directly to the project budget, for responding to direct technical requests from the
Project Manager and his team. This can be estimated at 8 weeks per year (approximately
equivalent to US$ 35,000/year) and includes the compilation of sub-national data sets and GIS
products derived from FAO databases".
FAO shared with the evaluation team a Director General's Bulletin dated May 2006 outlining various
delegations of authority and streamlining of administrative procedures which have arisen out of
substantial efforts that have been underway in the organization to streamline the administrative
processes. This effort is continuing and is bound to lead to improved delivery mechanisms and
enhanced chances of success for interventions.
4.2.2
The disbursement process
In response to a request from the evaluation team, FAO described its system of financial controls
which is based on the "segregation of duties and determination of responsibilities and levels of
authority, with detailed rules and procedures in force for all significant administrative and financial
systems and processes".
FAO noted the importance of the "separation of a budget holder's
responsibility for making expenditure decisions from the execution of administrative and financial
27
actions to give effect to those decisions, including related payments. The execution of those
transactions is itself subject to the separation of duties and limitations of authority depending on the
nature and/ or value of the transaction or payment concerned and the office in which it will be
carried out. These processes and transactions are in turn subject to review by internal and external
auditors, including auditors engaged locally to review transactions carried out at FAO's field offices".
A key person is the budget holder (BH) who "has the responsibility to operate the project and
manage project resources. He/ she may delegate responsibility for parts of the budget to other FAO
personnel but remains responsible and accountable for all project resources. Project Managers/
CTAs will thus receive delegated authority to incur expenditures against the part of the annual work
plan and related expenditure plan that are directly under their responsibility. This is done through a
Field Budget Authorization (FBA)".
In the case of this project, the Project Manager used the authority delegated to the FAO Office in
Luanda with disbursements being made through the Imprest Account of the FAORs.
Had the
Project Manager had an Imprest Account he would have had the delegated authority to "procure
goods and services, including contracts with not-for-profit organizations using Letters of Agreement
(LOAs) for up to US$25,000 per transaction".
The evaluation team came across a UNEP/GEF/UNOPS regional project, in Africa, where the
Regional Project Coordinator is advanced funds as and when required (on a cashflow forecast
basis), but according to the Annual Work Plan and Budget. The funds are deposited in an account
operated by the Regional Project Coordinator who is required to account for the monies spent when
making the next request for replenishment.
This is an admirable extreme in devolution, and it
illustrates the extent of delegation and devolution that the UN system is able to implement. FAO
have advised the team that they are prepared to consider such a level of delegation.
The segregation of duties operated by FAO for its disbursement process may have evolved out of a
need for strict checks and balances, but it creates a maze of authorities, responsibilities, reviews
and approvals and it is no wonder that the system is being reviewed and streamlined.
It was
alleged to the evaluation team that the FAO process is too cumbersome for the expeditious
implementation of projects. It is also very rigid and tends to stifle the performance of a Project
Manager.
Perhaps if the system had to focus less on procedural minutiae and place more
emphasis on the objective of the procedures, projects would be better served, delivery rates would
go up and cost-effectiveness would rise.
4.2.3
The recruitment process
The recruitment process of the past Project Manager has been questioned by some stakeholders
and FAO were therefore invited to explain the recruitment process in general and they reported as
follows :
"The process applicable to all project personnel envisages identification of candidates, selection,
recruitment and separation. All the steps have a number of variants depending on the type of
personnel input. All professional candidates must be technically cleared by a Technical Support
Officer (Mr Burke in case of this project).
Candidates for the positions of Project Managers/CTAs, are usually identified through a roster
search or through vacancy announcements. The Lead Technical Unit (LTU) usually prescreens,
pre-selects and interviews the candidates and submits a shortlist to the BH (in this case Mr. De
Lannoy in RAFR, Accra) for further action. Based on this shortlist, the BH prepares a submission to
the regional Senior Field Staff Selection Panel (SFSSP) at the Regional Office that reviews the
submission of the LTU/BH and confirms the shortlist but may also modify the ranking (our
underlining). Once the SFSSP has agreed on the shortlist, the BH submits the shortlisted
candidates to the FAOR for government clearance. Once government clearance is obtained, the
28
RAF Personnel Officer submits an offer to the selected candidate and, if he/she accepts the
proposal as well as the proposed remuneration, issues the contract. Throughout this process only
the Personnel Officer has the authority to negotiate the conditions of the contract with the candidate.
The Personnel Officer and related staff also provide personnel servicing to recruited staff.
The recruitment process applied by FAO for the recruitment of Project Managers appears thorough
enough. However, it could be very one-sided and internalised to FAO. According to the ProDoc,
"the Project Management Unit, (PMU) will be appointed by the PSC" and presumably this includes
the Project Manager. In the process applied by FAO, there was no input by the PSC and the only
input from outside FAO is through the interviewing panel.
Unfortunately, the decision of the
interviewing panel can be overturned by the regional Senior Field Staff Selection Panel (SFSSP).
The specifics of the recruitment of the PM for this project are discussed in Section 4.3.2 below.
4.2.4
Travel authorization
It was reported that travel authorization had to be issued each time the PM had to travel. It was
therefore decided to invite FAO to explain the Travel Authorization process and they replied as
follows :
Staff member travel:
a) The staff member submits a request for travel authorization (TA) to RAF
Travel Unit (TU) based on an approved travel plan (normally one week notice required), specifying
route and days spent on mission; b) TU makes necessary checks, processes the TA in the System
for approval by HQ. Once the TA is approved, the ticket is issued to the traveller and DSA paid
before departure. The total time to process a travel application varies from 1 to 7 days (depending
on internal routing).
The team was advised that in practice it usually took three weeks, and tickets and DSA were often
issued at the last minute, following reminders, etc.
Consultant travel:
Following the identification of the consultant, upon agreement between the
consultant and the FAO Personnel Officer on the remuneration, TORs, etc, and signature of the
contract, the RAF Personnel Unit raises in the System a TA for the consultant to travel to the duty
station. As soon as the request for a TA is received through the System by the Shared Services
Centre (AFDS), the HQ travel unit issues the authorization that the ticket and DSA be provided (or a
central travel agent issues a prepaid ticket to the consultant to travel to the duty station), DSA being
usually paid at the duty station. The total time to process travel usually varies from 1 to 7 days.
Several issues can affect the processing time, including the requirement to obtain security
clearances.
The above has some steps which appear superfluous (such as having to gain approval from HQ in
Rome). It also presupposes that the HQ travel unit and its travel agent know best, without any
discussion with, or involvement of, the individual who is to travel. It is a well-known fact that tickets
issued at the point of origin are usually cheaper than those issued from afar and the use of a central
travel agent in Rome may not be the most cost-effective option for an organization that is operating
projects in all parts of the globe. Neither is it possible to reflect changing circumstances easily and
quickly.
It is a relief to note that in-country travel in accordance with the project document and work plan can
be arranged by the FAO Country Office. In the case of regional projects, FAO "can also issue
"blanket" travel authorizations to allow for flexibility, particularly for multiple trips to the countries
assisted by the project". The evaluation team was advised that FAO is prepared to consider such a
"blanket" travel authorization to the new Project Manager, to cover all travel by project personnel to,
from and within Angola, Namibia and Botswana, and including Johannesburg. This will eliminate
the need for further authorizations for travel in the conduct of project implementation and places the
29
responsibility for these operational decisions where it should be with the Project Manager, who is
paid to make these decisions and be accountable for them.
4.2.5
Conclusions on project administration
The comparative advantage that FAO was meant to bring to this project is not significant, in that the
most unique component is the technical element and this could have been obtained on contract
(from FAO or elsewhere), separately from the administrative element which could have been more
efficiently carried out by an organization with support systems attuned to those of UNDP.
FAO procedures for disbursements, recruitment and travel are acknowledged by FAO personnel
themselves as not being easy and they must change to reflect the needs of this project, because
the alternative is project failure. FAO has advised the team that the PM will be given the utmost
level of delegation with regards to travel authorization; that the Budget Holder will be moved from
Accra to Rome thus bringing together the administrative and technical support for the project; and,
what is more important, and regardless of where the Budget Holder is located, FAO intends to
provide the PM with the delegation, powers and flexibility to do the job.
With the procedural reforms within FAO currently underway in search of greater efficiency, FAO
should use this project as a pilot to test a more devolved, delegated and less controlled system.
Existing procedural constraints could be set aside and a more devolved approach to project
management could be adopted with streamlined procedures, higher degree of delegation (with
accountability), higher levels of financial discretion, broader powers of recruitment and generally
allowing greater flexibility to the Project Manager in a climate of mutual trust.
4.3
Project management
4.3.1
The PMU and the NCUs
According to the ProDoc, the Project Management Unit (PMU) "will be appointed by the PSC and
will work under its guidance to oversee day to day implementation of project activities".
A core
team was envisaged led by the Project Manager and comprising "national programme co-ordinators
[and] the best possible expertise from the riparian countries in water resources; natural resource
management; environmental specialists (with emphasis on wetlands); and social and community
development".
UNDP has cooperation agreements with relevant national agencies, namely -
the Ministry of
Energy and Water in Angola; the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Affairs in Botswana; and the
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development in Namibia.
Specific line ministry co-
ordination and multi-disciplinary collaboration, including national NGOs, were expected to be
undertaken at country level by the National Coordination Units (NCUs), which were seen as "the
functional equivalents of inter-ministerial committees". Accommodation requirements for the NCUs
were expected to be provided by the respective Governments.
The project provides financial support for the operation of the Angola NCU, but not for those in
Namibia and Botswana. The evaluation team was advised that the latter two governments saw this
as part of their contribution in kind to the project. However, the team believes that it is not in the
best interests of the project to rely on in-house resources when there are real expenses accruing to
national organizations. The team recommends that consideration be given to the project providing
support to cover actual expenses incurred by the NCUs of Botswana and Namibia for example for
field work, meetings and travel to the Basin. This is seen as a more equitable situation.
30
The NCUs have been established in both Angola and Namibia, but not in Botswana. However, the
evaluation team was informed of the significant initiative taken by Botswana through the Okavango
Delta Management Plan Project which is nearing completion.
This project, with its Secretariat
based in Maun, has coordinated the input of 12 sectors and has covered the work of the intended
NCU, more or less. It is also important to note that the Okavango Delta Management Plan Project
employed an almost identical approach to that advocated by the TDA, but at the national level, and
the result can also be said to come close to the intended SAP, even if in both cases this is limited to
the Botswana sector of the Basin.
The ProDoc also recognizes that the PMU will be based in Luanda, Angola, in accordance with the
OKACOM decision taken in June 2001. The location of the PMU in Luanda has been questioned by
many spoken to by the evaluation team. They felt that Luanda is not an easy place to operate from
and that this may have contributed significantly to the problems the project had to face.
The
evaluation team accepts the sentiments behind the OKACOM decision to place the PMU in Angola,
but agrees that Luanda is a difficult place to work from and that these difficulties need to be kept in
mind when UNDP, FAO and the Government of Angola are considering the support necessary for
the successful functioning of the PMU. A good example of the approach that is needed was the
budget revision which was undertaken to reflect the higher costs of locating the PMU in Luanda.
From what the evaluation team has been told, many stakeholders feel that the location of the PMU
in Luanda is too far from the Okavango Basin and some felt that a more appropriate location would
have been Menongue or Rundu. However, while agreeing in principle, the evaluation team wonders
whether the placement of the PMU at either of these two locations is realistic.
As host Government, Angola was expected to provide a suitable premises for the PMU as part of its
contribution in-kind. However, Angola could not meet this commitment and project funds had to be
made available to provide the PMU with office accommodation.
Much delay ensued and
misunderstandings regarding UN procurement procedures led to further difficulties which have been
discussed at length in the PM's Inception Report7. These have now been resolved and the PMU is
now housed in its own premises. The evaluation team believes that the current PMU premises is
adequate to house the PM, the Basin Planner, the Finance Officer and the Administration Assistant
who make up the core staff. The evaluation team noted that the premises is not identified in any
way with the project and suggests (unless there are any security or other extenuating
circumstances) that appropriate signage should be erected to recognize the project and its key
stakeholders. This would be in keeping with the GEF requirement that its support be acknowledged
through appropriate signage.
In view of the problems recounted above and the desirability for the PMU to be closer to the Basin,
should the current premises become unavailable, consideration should be given to moving the PMU
to Lubango or Huambo where, the evaluation team was told, conditions are not as difficult as in
Luanda, which is closer to the Basin (in the case of Lubango, and in the Basin for Huambo) and
from where Menongue is more accessible by road and air.
The project budget made provision for the purchase of a vehicle to be based with the PMU.
Supplementary project vehicles for field based project activities are to be provided by the
participating government agencies. In this connection, the evaluation team noticed that the project
vehicle in Luanda only carried the FAO logo and nothing else. This is contrary to GEF requirements
on signage.
4.3.2
Project personnel
The project envisaged the recruitment of a Project Manager (also referred to as CTA), an
Administrative Assistant, a Secretary and a Driver to make up the PMU. In addition, the project also
provides full-time salary support for the National Project Coordinator in Angola.
The Inception
Report refers to the difficulties and delays encountered with these appointments which were
7 Krugmann, Hartmut CTA/Project Manager (2005) Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the
Okavango River Basin (EPSMO). UNTS/RAF/010/GEF. Inception Report, 04 April 2005
31
delayed by the lack of accommodation and which in turn hindered the project from making progress.
The recruitment process applied by FAO for the Project Manager position has been described
above. The appointment was initially questioned by some OKACOM Commissioners on the basis of
its transparency and perceived bias, however, these reservations were later withdrawn and the
appointment was allowed to stand.
In the event, the appointee only served for one year and
declined the renewal of his contract and resigned.
The evaluation team wishes to suggest that for the recruitment of a replacement Project Manager,
the interviewing panel should comprise one representative each from the three Governments
(possibly an OKACOM Commissioner), UNDP and FAO.
The interviews should be held in
Johannesburg/Pretoria as a neutral centre if the applicants to be interviewed are from Southern
Africa, and in Rome if the applicants are from Europe or North America. However, what is more
important is that the decision of the interviewing panel should be final and the record of the
process, including the interview and the basis for selection, should be available for disclosure at
least to the PSC, even though the decision cannot be re-litigated.
The evaluation team also suggests that consideration should be given to the recruitment being
made at D1 level and that the position should not be referred to as CTA since this is a misnomer
and could lead to misunderstandings especially in translation.
Finally, the evaluation team notes the need to review the Terms of Reference for the Project
Manager. In particular the reporting functions of the PM need to be tightened. He/she is required to
do more than simply "consult with, and co-ordinate closely with" the Project Steering Committee.
The Project Manager is required to report to the PSC on project progress and performance, and
take directions and guidance from the PSC on project implementation. He/she must also report to
FAO on personal performance and administrative matters.
4.3.3 Special relationship with OKACOM
It has been suggested to the evaluation team that it will be beneficial for the project if the PMU, and
especially the Project Manager, had to have a special relationship with OKACOM, in addition to the
one through its membership of the PSC.
The team favours such a development and can see
benefits accruing, as long as the objectives of the relationship are clearly understood by both sides.
The team sees this taking the shape of an OKACOM member being nominated by OKACOM to
serve as the contact point for the PM with the Commission. We stress that this must not be a
supervisory relationship, neither is it one which monitors performance. On the contrary, it must be
more in the form of a mentoring arrangement and a gateway to OKACOM for the PM. It is primarily
for the PM's benefit and it is expected that the initiative for most contact will lie with the PM.
4.3.4 Project performance monitoring
According to GEF guidance, "All projects will include a concrete and fully budgeted monitoring and
evaluation plan" and the ProDoc does provide a schedule of various meetings and reports. It also
recognizes the need for a monitoring and evaluation plan which will include critical indicators.
These indicators are expected to track the short and long-term impacts of this and other related
projects in the Basin and are expected to include process (e.g. policy, legal, institutional and other
reforms), stress reduction (e.g. reduced pollutant loads or per capita water demands, etc), and
environmental status (e.g. cleaner waters, restored habitats, etc). The ProDoc also identifies the
"updated TDA that will be created by the end of year two of the project" as a particularly useful
indicator mechanism.
No indicators are provided to measure the outcomes or the long-term impact of the project. On the
other hand, indicators have been identified for the overall objectives, purpose and outputs In the
32
LogFrame Matrix. However, there are no process indicators and this should be rectified during the
preparation of the Annual Work Plans when the activities will be more accurately defined. At that
stage the responsibility for carrying out the activities should also be specified.
The indicators used, refer only to the end of the project and it is necessary to specify in addition the
values at other milestones, such as at the beginning (the baseline) and the mid-term of the project.
This is particularly necessary since the formulation makes provision for a mid-term evaluation as
well as a terminal evaluation. Once again, this could be done during the preparation of the Annual
Work Plans.
It would also help for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation to include the
beneficiaries in the LogFrame Matrix.
Even though the output and input budgets provided are acceptable, monitoring and evaluation
would be greatly facilitated if the input budgets are related to the output budgets. This is to enable
the PSC to assess any departures from the budgeted inputs for delivering the outputs. This should
be addressed during the preparation of the Annual Work Plans and budgets. The present system of
financial reporting will need to be adjusted to accommodate this.
The evaluation team was advised that the PMU had started to follow the LogFrame Matrix according
to its defined objectives, outcomes and respective indicators for the formulation of the Annual Work
Plan and budget with the participation of all project professional staff. However, the ProDoc was of
somewhat limited usefulness for project implementation and performance monitoring mainly
because by the time the project got going, it was rather dated (it had been developed some 3-5
years earlier). Some adjustments to the outputs/activities and indicators were made and these were
reflected in the PIR-2005.
However, if the project is restarted, a more thorough review of the
LogFrame Matrix is required at the outset to reflect changed circumstances. It is also essential that
an effective monitoring plan is developed and to obtain stakeholders' commitment to the
confirmed/revised targets and indicators through a fresh project inception workshop with the active
participation of national/regional key stakeholders.
Finally, a very effective monitoring mechanism is the regular reporting by the PM to the PSC. This
did take place in this project as evidenced by the record of the PSC meetings.
4.3.5
Conclusions on project management
While the evaluation team accepts the fact that the PMU will remain in Luanda, there needs to be a
clear understanding by all stakeholders that the professional independence of the PM and the PMU
is not to be questioned except through the PSC the PM and PMU must be independent of any one
government in the execution of their duties.
While the new PM is to be appointed according to transparent UN procedures, the process must
recognize the ProDoc commitment to provide a role for the PSC in the appointment process. This is
best achieved if the Panel is to comprise one representative from each government, one from
UNDP and one from FAO. However, it is also imperative that the decision of the panel must be final
and all key stakeholders must undertake that they will support the appointee to their fullest possible
extent. The appointment of a good PM is seen by virtually all those spoken to by the team as the
most crucial element in the success or failure of the project.
If the project is restarted, the new PM should lead efforts to review the LogFrame (including its
milestones and indicators), formulate an effective monitoring plan and put in place a robust
monitoring mechanism for the project, building on the indicators used in the PIR-2005. The results
of monitoring should be published on the project's website or other recognized website as part of a
serious outreach effort. In the interest of accountability, the results of monitoring should include
financial statements together with an indication of who will be acting in response to the results.
33
4.4
State of the budget and financial viability
This is not a financial audit of the project and the procedures used for disbursements and the
financial control systems have already been discussed above under Section 4.2.
This section
examines the state of the budget and draws conclusions on the financial viability of the project,
should it be restarted.
The ProDoc provides a helpful tabulated summary of the calculated cost of each Output and the
source of funding in each case. This table is reproduced below :
Table 1.
Project Financing by Outputs (in US$) (from ProDoc)
Project Components/Outputs
TOTAL
Co-financing
GEF
Component A: Joint Management
Output A1: Expertise
731,700
35,000
696,700
Output A2: Stakeholder Participation
934,850
100,000
834,850
Output A3: Policy initiatives
360,800
315,000
45,800
Output A4: Monitoring and Evaluation
161,675
0
161,675
Total: A.
2,189,025
450,000
1,739,025
Component B: Completed TDA
Output B1: Basin water resource analysis
1,966,820
1,426,000
540,820
Output B2: Socio-economic analysis
720,200
200,000
520,200
Output B3: Super-imposed frameworks
94,069
0
94,069
Output B4: Environmental assets
117,630
0
117,630
Output B5: Alternatives
500,576
0
500,576
Output B6: Water management models
127,450
0
127,450
Output B7: Criteria
90,140
0
90,140
Total B.
3,616,885
1,626,000
1,990,885
Component C: SAP Formulation
Output C1: Technical & policy implications of options
111,660
0
111,660
Output C2: Joint management plan negotiated
417,040
0
417,040
Output C3: Commitments defined
137,190
0
137,190
Output C4: SAP document produced
245,210
0
245,210
Output C5: SAP finance mobilised
259,900
0
259,900
Total C.
1,171,000
0
1,171,000
Project Support Services
490,091
490,091
TOTALS
7,467,000
2,076,000
5,391,000
PDF (Block A and B)
374,000
374,000
Total Project Financing
7,841,000
5,765,000
From this table it can be seen that the project was depending almost completely on co-funding for
Output A3 - Policy Initiatives and Output B1 - Basin Water Resource Analysis. Less so, but still
significant is its dependence on co-funding for Output B2 Socio-economic Analysis. The team
was advised that these co-financing figures were rough estimates at the time the ProDoc was
finalized, which was 3-5 years prior to project initiation. By the time the project started, the situation
was completely different and the co-financing figures no longer applied.
The main co-financing
source during the first year of project operation was the USAID-funded IRBM Project and the main
activity conducted on a shared expense basis between EPSMO and IRBM was the rehabilitation of
hydrometric stations in the Angolan part of the Basin.
The evaluation team was advised that the establishment and running costs of the PMU and its
personnel and overall project expenses, had been distributed proportionally across all outputs in the
original budget. This is not considered adequately transparent.
The PM proposed a revision of the budget at the Inception Report stage (April 2005) "in the light of
current needs, realities and time frames and on the basis of the revised work plan". While the total
amount from GEF remained the same, some significant switches among the Components and
34
particular Outputs were proposed and these can be followed in Table 2 below. At the component
level, Component A is increased significantly and so is Component B but to a lesser extent. But this
is done at the expense of Component C which has been halved.
The costs of the PMU and "central" project personnel were now lumped together under Output A1:
Expertise, and this, which in the opinion of the evaluation team is no more transparent than before,
has led to the more than 100% increase in this item. Other salient changes are the increases for
Output A3 : Policy Initiatives, and Output B1: Basin Water Resource Analysis (which have been
more than doubled), and the drastic decreases in Output A4: Monitoring and Evaluation, and in all
but one of the Outputs under Component C: SAP Formulation.
However, this outputs-based budget revision was not implemented.
Instead, FAO effected an
adjustment to the budget according to the inputs-based Oracle system and this was presented to
the PSC meeting in November 2005. In his report to the meeting the Project Manager explained the
reasons for re-allocations between budget categories and these were :
major reductions in
allocations to `travel' (mainly consultants), `consultants' (fees), and `non-expendable equipment'
resulted from more realistic assumptions about travel costs and consultancy requirements, as well
as price reductions in or improved co-funding prospects for different types of equipment,
respectively; major increases in allocations to `contracts', `professional salaries', `technical support
services', `general operating expenses', and `training', in turn, were motivated by more informed
assumptions about the need for contracts, salaries, support services, operating expenses and
training requirements.
These budget revisions could be considered as examples of adaptive
management.
The latest budgetary information available to the evaluation team was provided by the FAO Budget
Holder in a series of Inputs-based tables in the Oracle format. Subsequently, a table was provided
showing budget changes and estimated remaining funds by Output. This was requested specifically
by the team because we found the inputs-based budget statement as unhelpful for project analysis
and planning purposes.
FAO has advised the team that it is ready to implement output-based
financial reporting if this is what is required.
The tables provided by FAO are carried in Annex 6, and the information from the Outputs-based
table has been entered in the following table which traces the changes in the budget for the GEF
contribution, per Output, and finishes with an indication of the remaining funds as on 15 October
2006.
35
Table 2.
Changes in the GEF component of the project budget and remaining funds
PROPOSED APPROVED
REMAINING
ORIGINAL
REVISION
SPENT
BUDGET
FUNDS
PROJECT COMPONENTS/OUTPUTS
(as in
(as in
(as on 15
REVISION
(as on 15
ProDoc)
Inception
October)
"B"
October)
Report)
Component A: Joint Management
Output A1: Expertise
696,700
1,309,043
1,875,898
789,000
1,086,898
Output A2: Stakeholder Participation
834,850
577,322
386,050
0
386,050
Output A3: Policy initiatives
45,800
160,142
291,571
0
291,571
Output A4: Monitoring and Evaluation
161,675
47,572
90,583
48,000
42,583
Total A
1,739,025
2,094,079
2,644,102
837,000
1,807,102
Component B: Completed TDA
Output B1: Basin water resource analysis
540,820
1,138,390
603,428
130,000
473,428
Output B2: Socio-economic analysis
520,200
437,070
464,418
0
464,418
Output B3: Super-imposed frameworks
94,069
103,071
103,000
59,000
44,000
Output B4: Environmental assets
117,630
95,142
125,000
0
125,000
Output B5: Alternatives
500,576
172,874
116,267
0
116,367
Output B6: Water management models
127,450
95,335
116,367
0
116,367
Output B7: Criteria
90,140
174,599
44,100
0
44,100
Total B
1,990,885
2,216,481
1,572,680
189,000
1,383,680
Component C: SAP Formulation
Output C1: Technical & policy implications of options
111,660
161,018
217,128
0
217,128
Output C2: Joint management plan negotiated
417,040
214,032
214,000
0
214,000
Output C3: Commitments defined
137,190
83,000
83,000
0
83,000
Output C4: SAP document produced
245,210
59,300
24,000
0
24,000
Output C5: SAP finance mobilised
259,900
73,000
146,000
0
146,000
Total C
1,171,000
590,350
684,128
0
684,128
Project Support Services
490,091
490,091
490,090
98,478
391,612
OVERALL TOTALS
5,391,000
5,391,001
5,391,000
1,124,478
4,266,522
As can be seen from above, Budget Revision "B" continued the trend set in the Inception Report by
increasing the budget for Component A even further. However, the budget for Component B has
been pared back and is now less than the original budget.
Component C has been increased
slightly but it is still almost half of what the ProDoc had allocated in the original budget.
The table also shows that the only significant expenditure has been for Output A1, presumably for
salaries and other PMU expenses; and for Output B1 for the EPSMO share of the hydromet stations
rehabilitation.
As on 15 October 2006, 31% of the budget for Component A had been spent, 12% of the budget for
Component B had also been spent, but there has been no expenditure for Component C (as
expected). Component A expenditure reflects the duration of the project to date (approximately one
year which is one third of the scheduled project duration). If the project is restarted, the remaining
budget for Component A is going to last for about two years. However, from the lessons learnt to
date, this may not be sufficient time to complete all project activities, and while the team is confident
that sufficient funds remain overall to complete the project, the team does not support the continuing
erosion of the budgets for Components B and C to cover the escalating costs of project
management and administration unless it can be fully justified to the PSC. An effective way of
overcoming this potential constraint is to negotiate with sister/parallel projects in the Basin to
collaborate on some activities which they have in common with EPSMO, and this is discussed
further in the following section. This should lead to savings on some activities and the funds could
be deployed elsewhere within the budget.
4.5
Coordination with other initiatives
36
The relative vacuum created by the slow progress made by the EPSMO project, and the perceived
need for early action on Okavango Basin conservation and management issues, motivated some
national, regional and international stakeholders, with the support of donor agencies like SIDA,
USAID and the EU, to initiate various projects in the Okavango Basin. Of these, the two which have
had the closest working relationship with the project are :
Okavango Improved River Basin Management Project (IRBM), funded by USAID, US$5-6 million
over 4 years (2004-2008).
"Every River Has its People" (ERP)Okavango, funded by SIDA, Phase 2, $2 million US over 3
years (20042006)
Both the above projects are considered as parallel projects and some of their activities have been
considered as co-funding for the purpose of the EPSMO project.
While no formal agreement for
collaboration was finalized, the three projects had agreed in principle to coordinate their efforts at a
meeting in Johannesburg in February 2005. A significant output from that meeting was a list of
indicative follow-up actions which the three partners agreed each would carry out. On the part of
the EPSMO project, the commitment included :
1. Confirm and document an institutional diagram for OKACOM and OBSC with functions and
procedures for approvals and reporting. Describe the roles and responsibilities, institutional
arrangements and linkages for OKACOM and OBSC.
Describe relationships to riparian
governments and projects.
2. Revise project/activities matrix by Feb 28 and share with participants.
3. Share responsibility for aerial survey.
4. Take lead on:
Overall communication strategy (consultant to be hired)
Email distribution list for project coordination
Focal point for Luanda
Repatriation of data to Angola (e.g. water info from Portugal)
Environmental implications of HIV/AIDS
Biophysical indicators
Ecologically sensitive areas studies (IRBM will support)
If the project is restarted, it will need to reopen the productive dialogue with both these other
initiatives, update its commitment and collaborate effectively for mutual benefit.
While the above are the projects with which the EPSMO Project should rekindle the most direct
collaboration if restarted, there are other projects with whom collaboration may lead to mutual
benefits.
These include a number of GEF projects (e.g. Namibia Protected Areas, Botswana
Biodiversity, Angola NBSAP); some in which FAO is involved (e.g. AfDB food security in Angola,
National Irrigation Policy & Strategy in Botswana, Review of the Green Scheme in Namibia); and
others such as the Okavango Delta Management Plan Project in Botswana.
The distinguishing feature of the EPSMO project has been described as its creation of the holistic
Basin-wide context within which other initiatives in the Basin can nest. However, it cannot, and
must not, do this in isolation and collaboration with other relevant initiatives in the Basin is an
essential element in its implementation approach8. This is best achieved with the assistance of the
OKACOM Secretariat which might be moving from its administrative phase to a more technical
second phase during the remaining life of the EPSMO project.
4.6
Lessons learnt
There are a number of lessons that can be drawn from the negative experience of the project to
date.
In view of the project's circumstances, these are not the usual lessons dealing with
8 One potential partner even suggested that there should be an attempt to blend the three LogFrames.
37
stakeholder engagement, application of adaptive management strategies, efforts to secure
sustainability, knowledge transfer, and the role of M&E in project implementation.
Instead they
arise out of roles and responsibilities, processes and procedures, and governance structures. While
most of these are applicable primarily to this project, some may be of broader value.
The strong expressions of ownership on the part of in-country organizations and individuals need
to be actively harnessed and channelled towards the success of the project.
If not, they will
become a barrier to project success.
If misunderstandings are not cleared up as soon as they are noted and agreement obtained,
things can escalate and problems become insurmountable.
The time that it often takes to get a GEF project operational is lengthy and in this case it led to the
loss of momentum. Maybe there needs to be a time beyond which a project's approval lapses
unless it becomes operational.
A project that has had repeated delays such that its Project Document becomes stale and out of
date by the time it starts, can face serious barriers getting off the ground.
If a project that is fully justified by the need that has been identified falters, others often arise to fill
the gap, and the original project needs to ensure that the original justifications are still there before
it gets started again.
Loose terminology can create problems especially if translations into other languages are
involved. For example, the difference between lead country and host country; and the use of CTA
(Chief Technical Advisor) when what is meant is in fact Project Manager.
5
FINDINGS : RESULTS AND IMPACTS
5.1
Progress to date
The project commenced operations in November 2004 with the arrival of the Project Manager in
Luanda. As has been mentioned repeatedly elsewhere in this report, this project has achieved little
tangible progress. In an effort to obtain the most up-to-date record of the results achieved to date,
the evaluation team examined critical documents such as the minutes of the second PSC meeting in
November 2005 and the latest PIR of April 2006; and requested a report on progress from the a.i.
Project Manager in the PMU.
According to the report of the Project Manager to the November 2005 PSC meeting, the following
Activities had been undertaken by the project
Under Output A1
PMU office space has been identified in Luanda and rented since June 2005;
PMU support staff (an administrative assistant and a secretary) has been recruited and has
initiated work;
An Angolan Field Office has been identified in Menongue, Kuando Kubango Province and rented
since July, to serve as a logistical base for EPSMO field operations in the Angolan part of the
ORB;
A National Project Coordinator (NPC) for Angola has been recruited and has initiated work, thus
making the National Coordination Unit (NCU) for Angola operational;
The NCU for Namibia has been constituted and is operational;
38
A TDA/SAP Training Course has been held for GEF EPSMO staff, OBSC members and other
ORB stakeholders; and
National Inter-Sectoral Committee for Namibia has been established and is operational.
Under Output B1, some progress has been achieved towards:
the development of a consultant data base;
the rehabilitation of hydrometric gauging stations in the Angolan part of the ORB; and
the development of a GIS system for EPSMO, covering the entire Okavango River Basin (ORB).
As can be seen from the above, by the end of October 2005, when the project had been operational
for 12 months, only inception-type of activities and mobilization had been carried out and no
substantive results had been achieved.
By about 16 months from its becoming operational (April 2006) when the second PIR was written,
the project was rated as Unsatisfactory in terms of its progress towards the Objective and the
targeted Outcomes. The situation had changed little by the time the PMU reported (see Annex 7)
on progress to the evaluation team in October 2006.
Many of those spoken to by the evaluation team recounted their experiences in operating regionally
and Basin-wide, either at project level or on collaborative initiatives. All reported that a clear lesson
is that the time needed for mobilization, achieving consensus and gaining trust, is grossly
underestimated. The process takes time, a lot of time, and patience is of the essence. This is
especially so with regards to Angola which is only now emerging from a very difficult period and
which has a lot of catching up to do before it gains the necessary self-assurance and starts
participating as an equal partner in Basin-wide initiatives. The evaluation team believes that the
EPSMO project made the same mistake as other interventions and has paid the price. Where some
other initiatives had the flexibility to revise schedules, review plans and adapt to the circumstances,
EPSMO could not. If the project is restarted, the stakeholders will need to accept that progress will
be slow.
5.2
Project impacts and sustainability
This project is nested in GEF Operational Programme #9 Integrated Land and Water Multiple
Focal Area Programme. The goal of this Operational Programme is to help groups of countries
utilize the full range of technical, economic, financial, regulatory, and institutional measures needed
to operationalize sustainable development strategies for international waters and their drainage
basins.
The first Component of the project aims to achieve strengthened mechanisms for joint management
of the Okavango River Basin. This target fits well within the outcomes expected by OP#9 which
include the long-term commitment on the part of governments, IAs, donors, and the GEF to
leverage the intended sectoral changes to address the root causes of complex environmental
problems. Because impacts which result in damage to the water resources in one nation often
occur upstream in another nation, political commitments on the part of neighbouring countries to
work together, establish factual priorities, and decide on joint commitments for action need to be
nurtured. Such collaborative processes will be fostered through the SAP formulation.
The project has created some momentum in this direction through its mobilisation activities,
especially in Angola, less so in Namibia and much less in Botswana.
However, it has had no
discernible impact to date.
The second Component targets the completed transboundary diagnostic analysis. This work was
started during the PDF'B' phase and a draft TDA was produced which initiated a consultative
process with some basin stakeholders, established the current status of the basin as a whole,
identified causes of degradation and imminent threats, and indicated critical gaps in information,
39
policy and institutional arrangements. According to the ProDoc, the draft TDA will be expanded as
gaps in the analysis are filled.
Some progress could be claimed in this direction through the installation of five hydromet stations in
the upper catchments which was contributed to by the project.
However, this can hardly be
considered an impact or an outcome for the project.
The third Component of the project is the formulation of the Strategic Action Programme which will
arise out of the foundation set by the TDA. Since the TDA has yet to happen, no work has taken
place on the SAP as yet.
Sustainability depends on institutional strength and financial commitments and "strengthened multi-
country institutional arrangements" are specifically targeted by GEF OP#9. And, according to the
ProDoc, "The TDA will include a thorough review of the competencies and comparative advantages
of OKACOM as a basin organisation in preparation for SAP implementation. This analysis of the
effectiveness of existing mechanisms and clear recommendations for improvement of both
OKACOM and all the related policy, legal and institutional arrangements at national and regional
level is an important test of the GEF intervention".
In the event, a consultancy (or various consultancies) supported by SIDA examined the need and
options for an OKACOM Secretariat having recorded OKACOM's institutional capacities and priority
needs. This obviated the need for EPSMO to review OKACOM and after a decision (in principle) in
favour of a Secretariat had been made in Oct 2004, IRBM offered to provide "interim secretariat
services" (until such time as a Secretariat would be established, with SIDA core support and some
USAID support). While this is a very important outcome, it cannot be claimed by this project and the
sustainability of its products may ultimately depend on the work of other projects.
5.3
Stakeholder involvement in implementation
Stakeholder involvement in project implementation has been patchy. The evaluation team found
that the involvement of key stakeholders has been too little by some (UNDP Country Offices) and
too much by others (OKACOM). As discussed elsewhere, the former is the result of inadequate
resources, while the latter arose from a misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. The PMU
was expected to develop a public participation plan but this did not materialise before project
activities were halted and the involvement of communities and the public in project implementation
has been non-existent.
The following table summarizes the evaluation team's views on the extent of stakeholder
participation in project implementation to date.
Table 3.
Summary of stakeholder involvement in project implementation
STAKEHOLDER
RELATIONSHIP
EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT
Government of Angola
Owner
Not highly visible, dependent on reporting by OKACOM
Government of Botswana
Owner
commissioners and this process is unknown.
Government of Namibia
Owner
Not very active.
Needs to be more proactive.
Should
UNDP CO in Luanda
I.A. Principal UNDP office
assume UNDP lead but requires allocation of resources
40
to do so.
Not
very
active.
Support
role
requires
better
UNDP CO in Gaborone
I.A. UNDP support office
communication from Luanda.
Somewhat more active.
Support role requires better
UNDP CO in Windhoek
I.A. UNDP support office
communication from Luanda.
Very active. Maybe stand back a little in favour of UNDP
UNDP/GEF
Funding source
Country Offices.
Very actively involved, but role misunderstood.
High
OKACOM
Prime beneficiaries
degree of ownership augurs well for project outcomes.
Very active but as intermediaries of OKACOM and at
OBSC
Technical support
policy level.
Need to engage directly with project at
technical levels especially for TDA.
Very active and good technical support but from a
FAO HQ in Rome
Executing Agency
distance.
Very active but weak administrative support system.
FAO Regional Office in Accra
EA Budget Holder
Limited or no delegation to PM.
Active, but with limited
capacity for
administrative
FAO CO in Luanda
EA support office
support. Some resources.
Not very active, limited capacity and no resources to
FAO CO in Windhoek
EA support office
provide adequate support.
FAO CO in Gaborone
EA support office
Not active and no resources whatsoever for support.
Not very involved collaboration necessary when project
NGOs
Implementation partners
is underway.
Not involved at all yet.
Must be fully involved when
Communities
Ultimate beneficiaries
project is underway.
Minimal involvement to date. Must be fully involved when
Technical/research institutions
Partners for data and info
project is underway.
Partly involved to date need to be engaged again in
Other related projects
Complementary partners
collaborative arrangements.
5.4
Conclusions on results
As has been noted throughout this report, progress by the project towards the achievement of its
Objective and the three components is unsatisfactory and no long term impacts or outcomes can be
claimed as yet.
If the project is restarted, and if the various measures recommended in this report are implemented,
there is no reason why the targeted outcomes cannot be achieved.
41
6
COLLECTED CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions have been drawn throughout this report. They are gathered here and augmented as
necessary to reflect the list of tasks outlined in the Terms of Reference for the evaluation.
6.1
Overall conclusion
If the Governments can demonstrate that there is still the political will to sustain the project and with
a clearer understanding and acceptance of the various roles and responsibilities, the restructuring
and acceptance of the PSC as the highest body for project governance, the enhancement of
support and monitoring by the Implementing Agency, the streamlining of the administrative
procedures of the Executing Agency, and the removal of other barriers that have hindered it to date,
the evaluation team believes that the project is viable and that if restarted it has a good chance of
attaining its objectives successfully.
However, in order for this to happen, these prerequisites must be accepted and implemented by all
stakeholders as a rescue package and all elements need to be implemented. Failure to implement
some of the proposed changes or taking more than 4-5 months in deciding to do so, will jeopardise
the success of the project. In this case it will be better for UNDP to abandon the project now rather
than wait for it to fail.
6.2
Project design
This is a simple model which has been successfully applied in many other projects and as such, the
project design is basically sound and, in principle, the project should be viable.
Even though the
project design could have been improved, it was not, per se, responsible for the under achievement.
The original Objectives (or components) of the project are still valid and in spite of the initiatives that
have been implemented in the meantime, the GEF project is still relevant since none have created
the overarching and holistic context for management from a basin-wide perspective, that the GEF
project is targeting in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
The only possible design flaw of the project is the three-year timescale. In the circumstances faced
by the project, it seems that this timescale was unrealistic.
In a region such as this, with the
disparities that exist, it takes time to build relationships and trust.
6.3
Project Steering Committee
The Project Steering Committee must be recognized and supported by all stakeholders as the
highest governance body for the project. As such, it must have both the authority and the power to
set policy for the project and to monitor its performance. By confirming and accepting that the PSC
is the highest body for governance of the project, and that issues and disagreements are brought to
the PSC for resolution, the stakeholders will avoid issues becoming personalized, which is what
caused the downfall of the project.
The membership of the PSC must include all the key stakeholders, in particular the Governments of
Angola, Botswana and Namibia represented by their OKACOM Co-Chairs or as the Governments
may decide; UNDP/GEF as the funding source; UNDP as the organization that is accountable for
the GEF funds; and FAO which is the organization entrusted with the execution of the project. The
PSC will be co-chaired by the UNDP and OKACOM and will conduct its business by consensus.
The Project Manager supported by the Project Budget Holder will be required to attend PSC
meetings and inform the PSC. Other OKACOM Commissioners and OBSC members could also
attend to assist with technical and other matters. Likewise, NCU Coordinators (if available) and
42
representatives from other related projects in the Basin would be welcome to attend and inform the
PSC.
6.4
Progress towards attaining the project's environmental objectives
Progress by the project towards the achievement of its Objective and the three components is
unsatisfactory and no long term impacts or outcomes can be claimed as yet.
If the project is
restarted, and if the various measures recommended in this report are implemented, there is no
reason why the targeted outcomes cannot be achieved. However, this is subject to the acceptance
of the recommendations by all stakeholders.
6.5
Adequacy of remaining funds
On the basis of the financial resources estimated to be remaining according to Outputs, if the project
is restarted, the remaining budgets for Components B and C are considered adequate to carry out
the proposed activities. In fact, since some parallel projects have stepped into the breach and
carried out some of the activities, it is possible that funds from these two Components could be in
excess of requirements. On the other hand, funds for Component A would be expected to last for
about two years (which was the original duration of the project).
Experience in the Basin indicates that the time allowed for mobilization, achieving consensus and
gaining trust, has been grossly underestimated. Forging relationships and gaining trust takes time,
a lot of time, and if the project is restarted, the stakeholders will need to accept that progress will be
slow and that project financial resources may become stretched, even for Components B and C. In
this event, a project revision could move funds to where they are most needed although the team
does not support the continuing erosion of the budgets for Components B and C to cover the
escalating costs of project management and administration unless it can be fully justified to the
PSC. An alternative strategy would be to negotiate cooperation with sister projects in the Basin
(see 6.17 below).
6.6
Roles and responsibilities
The role of OKACOM as the originator of the project concept, the role of the Governments as the
signatories to the Project Document, the role of the Project Steering Committee as the highest
governance body for the project, and the role of the Project Manager as the individual entrusted with
the responsibility to obtain the project Outputs and achieve its Objectives, have been misunderstood
and confused. Likewise, there has been a lack of understanding of the procedures and processes
employed by the Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency.
Added to all this was the genuine assumption of the responsibility for day-to-day project overseeing
by Angola as the lead/host country which was not intended.
These misunderstandings and confusion permeated all aspects of the project to the extent that even
something that is not very important in the greater scheme of the project, such as office premises for
the PMU, escalated into a major area of contention and disagreement and in turn contributed to
further strained relations.
6.7
Use of LogFrame and performance indicators
Since the project had not really taken off, there was not much opportunity to use the LogFrame to
good effect and measure up progress against the set indicators. The PMU had started to follow the
LogFrame Matrix according to its defined objectives, outcomes and respective indicators for the
formulation of the Annual Work Plan and budget. However, the ProDoc was of somewhat limited
43
usefulness for project implementation and performance monitoring mainly because by the time the
project got going, it was rather dated (it had been developed some 3-5 years earlier). If the project
is restarted, a more thorough review of the LogFrame Matrix will be required at the outset to reflect
changed circumstances. The indicators given in PIR-2005 may be helpful in this respect. It is also
essential that an effective monitoring plan is developed and stakeholders' commitment to the
confirmed/revised targets and indicators needs to be obtained through a fresh project inception
workshop with the active participation of national/regional key stakeholders.
6.8
Partnership arrangements
Two projects which had the closest working relationship with the EPSMO project were the
Okavango Improved River Basin Management Project (IRBM) funded by USAID, and "Every River
Has its People" (ERP) funded by SIDA. While no formal agreement for collaboration was finalized,
the three projects agreed in principle to coordinate their efforts and a list of indicative follow-up
actions was drawn up. If the project is restarted, it will need to reopen the productive dialogue with
both these initiatives, update its commitment and collaborate effectively for mutual benefit. There
may even be merit in attempting to blend the three LogFrames of IRBM, ERP and EPSMO.
The distinguishing feature of the EPSMO project has been described as its creation of the holistic
Basin-wide context within which other initiatives in the Basin can nest, and this justification is still
valid. However, EPSMO cannot, and must not, do this in isolation and collaboration with these and
other relevant initiatives in the Basin is an essential element in its implementation approach.
6.9
Technical and administrative support by UNDP
As implementing agency, UNDP must be more proactive, and in particular the country offices need
to be more engaged. Of these, the Principal Country Office in Angola must assume the lead role in
supporting and monitoring the project through the PMU.
UNDP needs to take a more assertive stance in its requirements of FAO in the delivery of its
contractual obligations.
It is also necessary to have a formal Memorandum of Understanding
between UNDP and FAO.
6.10
Technical and administrative support by FAO
The comparative advantage that FAO was meant to bring to this project is not significant, in that the
most unique component is the technical element and this could have been obtained on contract,
separately from the administrative element which would have been more efficiently carried out by an
organization with support systems attuned to those of UNDP.
FAO procedures for disbursements, recruitment and travel need to change to reflect the needs of a
project such as this one, because the alternative is project failure. In particular, the PM must be
given the utmost level of delegation and flexibility and then supported to get on with the job he/she
has been engaged to perform.
FAO has indicated that it is prepared to move in these positive
directions
With the procedural reforms within FAO currently underway in search of greater efficiency, FAO
should use this project as a pilot to test a more devolved, delegated and less controlled system.
Existing procedural constraints could be set aside and a more devolved approach to project
management could be adopted with streamlined procedures, higher degree of delegation (with
accountability), higher levels of financial discretion, broader powers of recruitment and generally
allowing greater flexibility to the Project Manager in a climate of mutual trust.
44
While the new PM is to be appointed according to transparent UN procedures, the process must
recognize the ProDoc commitment to provide a role for the PSC. This is best achieved if the Panel
is to comprise one rep from each government, one from UNDP and one from FAO. However, it is
also imperative that the decision of the panel must be final and all key stakeholders must undertake
that they will support the appointee to their fullest possible extent. The appointment of a good PM is
seen by virtually all those spoken to by the team as the most crucial element in the success or
failure of the project.
6.11
Level of delivery
The project has under performed and failed to deliver the outputs expected in the one year it
operated. The level of delivery of the project has been unsatisfactory and many influences have
contributed to this. Of these, the most crucial influence has been the weak project governance
which, in turn, was brought about by the confusion that existed on the roles and responsibilities of
the various stakeholders, and the lack of appreciation of the procedures and processes of the
implementing agency and the executing agency.
6.12
Ownership
The evaluation team concludes that the high level of ownership of the project by OKACOM and
OBSC (particularly on the Angolan side), together with the positive views of those working on
parallel projects in the Basin, augur well for the success of the project if it were to be restarted.
Virtually all those consulted by the team said that the project must continue. Many, especially those
representing community level stakeholders and potential beneficiaries, have great expectations for
the project. The team detected some sadness and anguish that the project got to the point where
its activities had to be halted, but we also felt that maybe stakeholders are now prepared to move
on. The team was told that the project "is vitally important" and that "the project must not close the
people of the Okavango Basin need the project".
6.13
Government involvement and commitment
The three Governments agreed, contractually, to receive GEF funds and to abide by the procedures
of the implementing agency, namely UNDP, according to their respective Standard Basic
Assistance Agreements (SBAA) with UNDP. These procedures comprise the legal basis for the
project.
Country level involvement in project implementation has been effected almost exclusively by the
OKACOM Commissioners and the OBSC members acting upon the mandate given them by their
respective Governments9 and the special relationship that OKACOM has with this project, must be
recognized.
While the evaluation team accepts the fact that the PMU will remain in Luanda, there needs to be a
clear understanding by all stakeholders that the professional independence of the PM and the PMU
is not to be questioned except through the PSC. The PM and PMU must be independent of any one
government in the execution of their duties.
6.14
Stakeholder Participation and benefits accrued
Stakeholder involvement in project implementation has been patchy. The evaluation team found
that the involvement of key stakeholders has been too little by some (UNDP Country Offices) and
9 Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of Namibia
on the Establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission. 1994
45
too much by others (OKACOM). As discussed elsewhere, the former is the result of inadequate
resources, while the latter arose from a misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities. The PMU
was expected to develop a public participation plan but this did not materialise before project
activities were halted and the involvement of communities and the public in project implementation
has been non-existent.
6.15
Financial Management
The segregation of duties operated by FAO for its disbursement process may have evolved out of a
need for strict checks and balances, but it creates a maze of authorities, responsibilities, reviews
and approvals and it is no wonder that the system is being reviewed and streamlined.
It was
alleged to the evaluation team that the FAO process is too cumbersome for the expeditious
implementation of projects. It is also very rigid and tends to stifle the performance of a Project
Manager.
Perhaps if the system had to focus less on procedural minutiae and place more
emphasis on the objective of the procedures, projects would be better served, delivery rates would
go up and cost-effectiveness would rise.
6.16
Lessons Learnt
There are a number of lessons that can be drawn from the negative experience of the project to
date.
In view of the project's circumstances, these are not the usual lessons dealing with
stakeholder engagement, application of adaptive management strategies, efforts to secure
sustainability, knowledge transfer, and the role of M&E in project implementation.
Instead they
arise out of roles and responsibilities, processes and procedures, and governance structures. While
most of these are applicable primarily to this project, some may be of broader value.
6.17
Project implementation
If the project is restarted, the opportunity should be taken to rephase and rebudget the project, but
not necessarily redesign it.
The team also feel that to the extent possible, the focus of the project
should be shifted from the capital cities to the Basin which is where the natural resources are and
where those that rely on them, live.
The emphasis should be shifted away from the TDA and more to the SAP component. The TDA
must be completed in the shortest possible time and while it must be able to provide a solid
foundation for the SAP, if gaps are identified, it is not essential to wait until they are filled. Gaps can
be recorded and the SAP can provide the activities that will fill the gaps at the operational phase.
The work on the SAP should focus on the national level in the first instance and if it appears that the
project will run out of time and/or financial resources to complete the Basin-wide SAP, the task can
be shared with the OKACOM Secretariat following appropriate negotiations.
The OKACOM
Secretariat could provide logistical coordination and administrative support while OBSC will provide
the necessary technical input to consolidate the final Basin-wide SAP. This will also be a good
opportunity to involve fully the three staff, one from each country who, we understand, will be
seconded to the Secretariat according to the procedures to be adopted by OKACOM for the
Secretariat.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS : WHERE TO FROM HERE?
46
7.1
Removal of obstacles hindering project success
7.1.1 Project Ownership and Governance
For the purpose of clarifying project ownership and ensuring strong and effective governance ...
We recommend to UNDP that, in consultation with the three Governments, it should restructure the
Project Steering Committee to signal its position as the highest governance body for the project with
the following characteristics :
Members to comprise a representative of each of the three Governments namely, their
OKACOM Co-Chairs or whoever the Governments decide, a representative of UNDP/GEF, a
representative of the UNDP Country Offices and a representative of FAO at Headquarters level.
The UNDP Principal Resident Representative is to co-chair meetings with the relevant OKACOM
Commissioner on rotation.
The Project Manager will be required to attend and present a report on progress and respond to
policy directives and guidance issued previously.
The FAO Budget Holder will be required to attend to assist the Project Manager and present a
financial report.
Other OKACOM commissioners and members of OBSC will participate as available and provide
technical and other advice.
The Terms of Reference of the PSC should be redrawn by UNDP along the lines suggested in
Annex 5 and should be endorsed formally by all members.
The PSC should meet at least every 6 months, more frequently if necessary, in each of the
countries on rotation, if possible in one of the towns or main settlements in the Okavango Basin.
Meetings are to be hosted by the relevant Ministry as part of the Government in-kind contribution.
7.1.2 Project Administration and Execution
In order to overcome the administrative and execution barriers that have plagued the project ...
7.1.2.1 We recommend to UNDP and FAO that they should reach agreement on the format to be
used for financial reporting and that this should be acceptable to the PSC; that the quarterly and
annual financial monitoring system should be able to provide information about both the outputs-
based and the inputs-based budgets; and that this be one of the items in a formal MoU to be signed
between UNDP and FAO.
7.1.2.2 We recommend to FAO that technical support should be retained in Rome and that
arrangements must be made for scheduled, regular visits by the Technical Advisor to the PMU and
each of the NCUs.
7.1.2.3 We recommend to FAO that the existing ability of the Project Manager to approve travel
without formal Travel Authorization if travelling within Angola, should be extended to encompass all
travel to and from each of the three countries and including Johannesburg.
7.1.2.4 We recommend to FAO that the Budget Holder should be co-located with the technical
support unit in Rome. However, regardless of where the Budget Holder is located, he/she should
use his/her authority of delegation to enable the PM to have the maximum authority and the greatest
freedom to manage project resources, based on the approved Annual Work Plan and Budget.
Under this arrangement, funds would be transferred to the FAO Luanda Office, the PM would
authorize disbursements, and the FAO Luanda Office will make the disbursement in accordance
with the FAO's rules and procedures. Funds would be replenished when the PM has accounted for
what had earlier been released to him/her.
7.1.2.5 We recommend to FAO that in recognition of its ongoing procedural reforms in search of
greater efficiency, it considers the administration and execution of this project as a pilot which can
47
then be evaluated before being emulated throughout the system. Under such an approach, existing
procedural constraints can be set aside to allow a higher degree of delegation (with accountability),
higher levels of financial discretion, broader powers of recruitment and generally allowing greater
flexibility to the Project Manager in a climate of mutual trust.
7.1.2.6 We recommend to UNDP COs that they must take a more proactive role in this and other
GEF projects with their Environment Units adequately resourced and empowered to backstop,
monitor and support projects. This is absolutely essential in respect of the UNDP Angola Country
Office which is the Principal UNDP Office for the project.
7.1.2.7 We recommend to the UNDP Angola Country Office that it undertake to assist the new PM
with diplomatic support in his/her relationship with the Governments of the three countries.
7.1.3 Project Management
On the issue of project hosting, office location, PM responsibilities and recruitment ...
7.1.3.1 We recommend to UNDP, FAO and the Government of Angola as host government, that
the Project Management Unit be retained in Luanda and that the current premises for the PMU
should be retained. If for any reason (such as landlord's requirements) the PMU needs to relocate,
consideration should be given to locating it in Lubango or Huambo with the latter being in the
Okavango Basin and neither of which is understood to be as difficult as Luanda.
7.1.3.2 We recommend to the Project Manager to use every opportunity to shift the centre of
gravity of the project to the Basin, by basing the NCUs in Menongue, Rundu and Maun, and by
providing more equitable support through project funds to Namibia and Botswana to cover the
actual expenses of their NCUs.
7.1.3.3 We recommend to UNDP and FAO that the ToRs of the Project Manager should be revised
to identify clearly to whom he/she is responsible, to whom he/she reports, and to whom he/she is
accountable, and that the concurrence of the PSC should be sought on the new ToRs
7.1.3.4 We recommend to UNDP, FAO and the three Governments that the recruitment of a new
Project Manager should be according to the UN rules and procedures, should start with an
international search, the process should be expedited to the extent possible, interviews should be
held in Johannesburg or Rome, the interviewing panel should comprise a representative each of the
three Governments, UNDP and FAO, and the decision of the panel will be final.
7.1.3.5 We recommend to UNDP, FAO and the three Governments that in screening candidates
for the position of PM, the qualities to be looked for are : leadership and proven track record in
managing people and resources; interpersonal, negotiating and diplomatic skills; sensitivity to the
socio-cultural and socio-economic differences among the countries;
and the ability to inspire
confidence and trust. These qualities are to be given precedence over technical qualifications.
7.2
Project Implementation
7.2.1 Project Viability
7.2.1.1 We recommend to all stakeholders that in order for the project to be viable, these
recommendations need to be accepted by all and implemented fully, as a package. If any of the
48
salient recommendations are not accepted by all stakeholders, the viability of the project may be
placed in jeopardy.
7.2.1.2 We recommend to UNDP that unless decisions on the recommendations are made by the
end of January 2007, and unless there is a clear indication that a new Project Manager will be in
place by the end of April 2007, the project should be abandoned.
7.2.1.3 We recommend to UNDP that if the project is restarted, a thorough review (not necessarily
independent, but more thorough than the PIR, and involving stakeholders and beneficiaries), should
be conducted after six months to assess the extent to which the project has overcome previous
obstacles and made progress towards its targets.
7.2.2 Project design
To ensure that the project benefits from the results achieved by other initiatives in the Basin and to
strengthen the project design ...
7.2.2.1 We recommend to the Project Manager, under the guidance of the PSC, that the project
scope should be reviewed and changed/confirmed in view of the work of other projects;
that
meaningful collaboration with these other projects should be established since some of their results
can be considered as co-funded activities10; and that their representatives should be invited as
observers to the PSC meetings.
7.2.2.2 We recommend to the Project Manager that he/she reviews the LogFrame Matrix for
approval by the PSC, that the review should take into account changed circumstances and it should
extend to confirmed/revised targets and indicators.
The review should lead to an effective
monitoring plan which should be adopted through a fresh project inception workshop with the active
participation of national/regional key stakeholders.
7.2.2.3 We recommend to the Project Manager that the PMU should retain lead responsibility for
Component A and a coordinating role for each of Component B and Component C with the
coordination being provided through the services of one or more expert consultants.
7.2.2.4 We recommend to the Project Manager that a Public Information and Participation
Plan/Strategy should be formulated as soon as possible for approval by the PSC and that in addition
to the meaningful provision of opportunities for participation by communities and the public in the
project implementation, the Plan/Strategy should also provide for outreach, communication and
knowledge management.
7.2.2.5 We recommend to GEF and UNDP that in order to clarify objectives, constraints, procedures
and processes of the GEF for all stakeholders, a regional GEF workshop/seminar be organized, to
which all key stakeholders of this project as well as participants from other GEF projects in the
region will be invited to participate.
7.2.3 Component `A' : Mechanisms for Joint Management
As a mechanism for joint management ...
7.2.3.1 We recommend to the Project Manager that as a follow-up to the recommendation above
on project design, the PMU assume lead responsibility for the active implementation of this
Component, led by the PM himself/herself.
10 Even to the extent that the blending of LogFrames should be considered.
49
7.2.3.2 We recommend to the Project Manager and the PSC that if the project is restarted there
should be a start-up workshop organized by UNDP with the participation of the members of the
PSC, PMU, NCUs, OKACOM, OBSC, and partner NGOs. This is to explain what the project is
about, how it is organized and governed, and what the roles and responsibilities are of the various
stakeholders and actors.
7.2.3.3 We recommend to the Project Manager and the Government of Botswana that as soon as
feasible after the restarting of the project, all efforts are taken to appoint a National Project
Coordinator for Botswana to head the Botswana NCU along the same lines as in as Angola and
Namibia.
7.2.3.4 We recommend to the Governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia that in the
National Intersectoral Committees (NISC), which have already been established in Angola and
Namibia, there should be representatives of the relevant line Ministries with an interest in the Basin
as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's Office in recognition of the
international and legal nature of the subject.
7.2.3.5 We recommend to the Project Manager to take cognizance of the work carried out by
ERP/SIDA and IRBM/USAID :
To establish the Basin-wide forum through the Association for Environment Conservation and
Rural Development (ACADIR) in Angola, the Kalahari Conservation Society (KCS) in Botswana
and the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) in Namibia;
To set up, support, house and fund the OKACOM Interim Secretariat;
To review the mandate and functions of OKACOM and its organs.
and report to the PSC on how this work has influenced EPSMO activities.
7.2.4 Component `B' : Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
For the early completion of the TDA ...
7.2.4.1 We recommend to the PSC and the Project Manager that this Component should be
entrusted to the extent possible to the NCUs with the full collaboration of the OBSC, to compile the
TDA at national level. Following this, the PMU should appoint an expert consultant to work with the
OBSC to blend the national TDA elements into a truly Basin-wide TDA. We recommend that in view
of the need to accommodate seasonal elements, the investigation should commence as soon as
possible and be carried out over a 12-month period, but no more.
7.2.4.2 We recommend to the Project Manager that the regional group/s of experts especially for
climate, hydrology and water resources, socio-economic development, and land cover/land use
should be established immediately with nominations from the three countries.
The climate,
hydrology and water resources group should include experts from the meteorological services and
those responsible for ground water, water quality and sediment transport.
7.2.4.3 We recommend to the Project Manager, the NCUs and the OBSC that in the compilation of
the TDA (both national elements and Basin-wide) it is not essential to fill all the gaps in data and
information; it is sufficient to note and highlight any occurring gaps in knowledge and signal them to
be rectified as part of the SAP implementation.
7.2.4.4 We recommend to the NCUs and the OBSC that in compiling the national and Basin-wide
TDAs, use should be made of simpler methodologies, for example for water resources availability
analysis. Use should also be made of new data which have become available since the draft TDA
was completed, for example, through the work of the Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research
Centre, the Okavango Delta Management Plan Project, the various hydrological models which have
been developed, etc. In addition, use should be made of the institutional models for managing
50
international shared river basins available in the Toolbox for Integrated Water Resources
Management of the Global Water Partnership.
7.2.5 Component `C' : Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
In order not to delay the formulation of the SAP ...
7.2.5.1 We recommend to the PSC and the Project Manager that work on the formulation of the
SAP under this Component should be entrusted initially to national working groups established for
the purpose to approach the task from a national perspective in the first instance with the assistance
of an expert consultant engaged by the PMU.
The national-level outcomes are then to be
coordinated and facilitated by the OKACOM Interim Secretariat with the assistance of consultant
expertise to blend them into a Basin-wide SAP. The work can start immediately with some of the
recommendations from the preliminary TDA.
7.2.5.2 We recommend to UNDP/GEF and OKACOM that if it appears that the project will run out of
time and/or financial resources to complete the Basin-wide SAP, negotiations be entered into with
the SIDA Project to enable the task to be shared with the OKACOM Secretariat.
51
ANNEX 1
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of Reference
Project Independent Interim Evaluation
Project: Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management
of the Okavango River Basin
RAF/00/G33/A/1G/12
1. Introduction:
1.A:
Standard UNDP-GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy applied by UNDP-GEF at the project level has four objectives: i) to
monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making; iii) to promote accountability
for resource use; and iv) to document, provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. Independent interim
evaluations are commissioned to examine progress in achieving project objectives and make recommendations as to
how to improve project performance.
1.B.
Background/Rationale for Project
The Okavango River Basin (ORB) remains one of the least human impacted basins on the African continent.
Mounting socio-economic pressures on the basin in the riparian countries, Angola, Botswana and Namibia, threaten
to change its present character. It is anticipated that in the long term this may result in irretrievable environmental
breakdown and consequent loss of domestic and global benefits. Maintaining these benefits requires agreement
over the sharing of both the benefits and associated liabilities (to include those of an environmental nature) through
joint management of the basin's water resources. The 1994 Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission
(OKACOM) Agreement, 1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems and the 1997 UN Convention on
the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses provides a framework for such management.
Under the OKACOM Agreement, the riparian countries are working toward the implementation of an Integrated
Management Plan (IMP) for the basin on the basis of an Environmental Assessment (EA).
The project objective is to alleviate imminent and long-term threats to the linked land and water systems of the
ORB through the joint management of the ORB water resources and the protection of its linked aquatic ecosystems,
comprising all wetlands, fluvial and lacustrine systems, and their biological diversity. A two-stage approach has
been adopted. Stage 1, the subject of this intervention, will involve the preparation of the Strategic Action Program
(SAP). Stage 2, the subject of a subsequent intervention, will involve implementation of the SAP.
The Project is executed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Project
Management Unit is located in Luanda, hosted by the Angolan Ministry of Energy and Water.
There is a need to assess progress towards meeting the planned outcomes of the project. A number of new projects
have also been initiated in the area, with funding, inter alia from USAID and SIDA. The scope and activities of the
project, as well as governance and administrative arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure that the planned
objectives can be realised both timeously and cost effectively.
2.
Objective of the Evaluation
The Evaluation has been commissioned by UNDP and will be conducted according to guidance, rules and
procedures for such evaluations established by UNDP and the Global Environment Facility. The overall objective
of the Independent Interim Evaluation is to review the achievements made by the project after one year of
operation, examine delivery and recommend measures to enhance performance. It will establish the relevance of
the project in light of the initiation of other activities, the level of commitment to outcomes by all parties, and the
performance of the project's governance arrangements. The evaluation team should identify specific lessons
pertaining to the strategies employed and implementation arrangements, which will be of relevance to similar
International Waters projects.
52
3.
Scope of the Evaluation
The Evaluation will assess the project's achievements according to the following Project Review criteria (an
explanation of the terminology employed is provided in annex 2):
a) Outcomes
Assess progress towards attaining the project's environmental objectives and accrual of environmental
benefits at all levels global, regional and national. This should include the extent to which the project
contributed to: (a) strengthened mechanisms for the joint management of the Okavango River Basin
(ORB); (b) a completed transboundary analysis; and (c) a formulated SAP.
Establish whether the project outcomes, agreed by the GEF Council can be attained with the remaining
funds.
b) Implementation approach
Review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various individuals, agencies and institutions and the
level of coordination between relevant players.
Assess the level to which the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and performance indicators were used
as project management tools.
Evaluate any partnership arrangements established for implementation of the project with relevant
stakeholders involved in the country/region.
Describe and assess efforts of UNDP and FAO in support of the implementing agencies and national
institutions, notably in terms of technical and administrative backstopping.
Based on a thorough examination of the level of delivery and reasons behind this, make recommendations
with regard to the project objectives, project performance, and solving of existent differences.
c)
Country Ownership/drivenness
Assess the extent to which country representatives (including governmental officials, civil society, etc.)
were actively involved in project implementation.
Assess whether the Governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia have maintained technical and
financial commitment to the project
d) Stakeholder Participation and benefits accrued
Assess the level of public involvement in the project and comment as to whether the scope of public
involvement has been appropriate given the broader goals and objectives of the project.
Review and evaluate the extent to which project benefits have reached the intended beneficiaries.
e)
Financial Management
Assess the financial control systems, including reporting and planning, that allowed the project
management to make informed decisions regarding the budget.
Assess the extent to which the flow of funds had been proper and timely both from UNDP and from the
Project Management Unit to the field.
Evaluate the extent of due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
f)
Cost effectiveness
Assess the extent to which the project has completed the planned activities and met or exceeded the
expected outcomes according to schedule and as cost effective as initially planned.
g) Monitoring and Evaluation
Review the project's reporting systems and their efficiency.
Review the implementation of the project's monitoring and evaluation plans including any adaptation to
changing conditions (adaptive management).
h) Lessons Learned
Describe the main lessons that have emerged in terms of: strengthening country ownership/drivenness;
strengthening stakeholder participation; application of adaptive management strategies; efforts to secure
sustainability; knowledge transfer; and the role of M&E in project implementation. In describing all
lessons learned, an explicit distinction needs to be made between those lessons applicable only to this
project, and lessons that may be of value more broadly.
4.
Products Expected from the Evaluation
The Evaluation team will present a final report to UNDP, GEF, FAO and the concerned Governments following the
format appended as Annex 1. The Report will include an Executive Summary summarising the main findings,
lessons and recommendations. The evaluation will include ratings11 on the following aspects (1) sustainability, (2)
11 The ratings will be Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Marginally Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory and N/A.
53
Outcome/ achievement of the objectives, (3) implementation approach.
5.
Evaluation Team
The evaluation will be performed by a two-person team. The team will comprise 2 international consultants, both
wholly conversant with the development context of Africa, and International Waters management. One of the
consultants will have had previous experience evaluating GEF funded projects, while one will have experience with
managing inland water bodies in Africa. The team will have a wide range of skills, including prior evaluation
experience, expertise in water management, and related activities, and experience with economic and social
development issues.
6.
Methodology
The evaluation team will specify the methods used in compiling the evaluation in the final report. These will
include the following:
The Evaluation team will liaise with all key stakeholders, including OKACOM members, Government Ministries at
national and district level, NGOs and academic institutions, and civil society representatives. Structured and semi
structured interviews will be organised with key stakeholders to collect information.
Introductory and exit briefing meetings will be organised with OKACOM, UNDP and FAO to discuss the
evaluation. Copies of the final report will be circulated to Basin States and OKACOM, which will be afforded an
opportunity to provide an opinion on the findings of the report before it is finalised.
The evaluation team will undertake a review of documentation, including the Project Document and technical
reports, as listed in section 8. Field visits to the project sites in ORB, to verify information collected at the national
level should also be undertaken.
7.
Implementation Arrangements
The evaluation should take about 1 month starting in July 2006. The UNDP Country Office in Angola will assume
responsibility for coordinating the in country programme of the evaluation team, including stakeholder meetings
and field visits in consultation with the Government. Briefing sessions and bilateral meetings will be organised with
UNDP, FAO, OKACOM/ OBSC.
8.
Reference Documents
The Evaluation team will review all relevant background documents, to be supplied by UNDP, FAO and
OKACOM, including, amongst others:
- Project Document
- Rules and Procedures of the UN System for Project Execution
- Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs/ APRs)
- Project Plans
- Project Quarterly Reports
- Minutes of OKACOM Meetings, documenting OKACOM Policies
-- Other OKACOM documents as relevant to be made available by the Interim Secretariat
Annex 1: Evaluation Report: Outline
Executive summary
Brief description of project
Context and purpose of the evaluation
Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned
Introduction
Purpose of the evaluation
Key issues addressed
Methodology of the evaluation
54
Structure of the evaluation
The project(s) and its development context
Project start and its duration
Problems that the project seek to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Main stakeholders
Results expected
Findings and Conclusions
Project formulation
-
Implementation approach
Country ownership/Driveness
-
Stakeholder participation
-
Replication approach
-
Cost-effectiveness
-
Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
-
Indicators
-
Management arrangements
Implementation
-
Financial Planning
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Execution and implementation modalities
-
Management by the UNDP country office
-
Coordination and operational issues
Results
-
Attainment of objectives
-
Sustainability
-
Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff
Recommendations
Annex 2. Explanation on Terminology
Implementation Approach includes an analysis of the project's logical framework, adaptation to changing
conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project design, and
overall project management.
Some elements of an effective implementation approach may include:
The logical framework used during implementation as a management and M&E tool
Effective partnerships arrangements established for implementation of the project with relevant
stakeholders involved in the country/region
Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project implementation
Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management.
Country Ownership/Driveness is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas,
recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements where applicable.
Some elements of effective country ownership/driveness may include:
Project Concept has its origin within the national sectoral and development plans
Outcomes (or potential outcomes) from the project have been incorporated into the national sectoral and
development plans
Relevant country representatives (e.g., governmental official, civil society, etc.) are actively involved in
project identification, planning and/or implementation
The recipient government has maintained financial commitment to the project
55
The government has approved policies and/or modified regulatory frameworks in line with the project's
objectives
For projects whose main focus and actors are in the private-sector rather than public-sector (e.g., IFC projects),
elements of effective country ownership/driveness that demonstrate the interest and commitment of the local
private sector to the project may include:
The number of companies that participated in the project by: receiving technical assistance, applying for
financing, attending dissemination events, adopting environmental standards promoted by the project, etc.
Amount contributed by participating companies to achieve the environmental benefits promoted by the
project, including: equity invested, guarantees provided, co-funding of project activities, in-kind
contributions, etc.
Project's collaboration with industry associations
Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement consist of three related, and often overlapping processes: information
dissemination, consultation, and "stakeholder" participation. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups, institutions,
or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the GEF-financed project. The term also applies to
those potentially adversely affected by a project.
Examples of effective public involvement include:
Information dissemination
Implementation of appropriate outreach/public awareness campaigns
Consultation and stakeholder participation
Consulting and making use of the skills, experiences and knowledge of NGOs, community and local
groups, the private and public sectors, and academic institutions in the design, implementation, and
evaluation of project activities
Stakeholder participation
Project institutional networks well placed within the overall national or community organizational
structures, for example, by building on the local decision making structures, incorporating local
knowledge, and devolving project management responsibilities to the local organizations or communities
as the project approaches closure
Building partnerships among different project stakeholders
Fulfillment of commitments to local stakeholders and stakeholders considered to be adequately involved.
Sustainability measures the extent to which benefits continue, within or outside the project domain, from a
particular project or program after GEF assistance/external assistance has come to an end. Relevant factors to
improve the sustainability of project outcomes include:
Development and implementation of a sustainability strategy
Establishment of the financial and economic instruments and mechanisms to ensure the ongoing flow of
benefits once the GEF assistance ends (from the public and private sectors, income generating activities,
and market transformations to promote the project's objectives).
Development of suitable organizational arrangements by public and/or private sector
Development of policy and regulatory frameworks that further the project objectives
Incorporation of environmental and ecological factors affecting future flow of benefits.
Development of appropriate institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff, expertise, etc.)
Identification and involvement of champions (i.e. individuals in government and civil society who can
promote sustainability of project outcomes)
Achieving social sustainability, for example, by mainstreaming project activities into the economy or
community production activities
Achieving stakeholders consensus regarding courses of action on project activities.
Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences coming out of the
project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have two
aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up
(lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Examples of
replication approaches include:
56
Knowledge transfer (i.e., dissemination of lessons through project result documents, training workshops,
information exchange, a national and regional forum, etc).
Expansion of demonstration projects.
Capacity building and training of individuals, and institutions to expand the project's achievements in the
country or other regions.
Use of project-trained individuals, institutions or companies to replicate the project's outcomes in other
regions.
Financial Planning includes actual project cost by activity, financial management (including disbursement issues),
and co-financing. If a financial audit has been conducted the major findings should be presented in the TE.
Effective financial plans include:
Strong financial controls, including reporting, and planning that allow the project management to make
informed decisions regarding the budget at any time, allows for a proper and timely flow of funds, and for
the payment of satisfactory project deliverables
Due diligence due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
Cost-effectiveness assesses the achievement of the environmental and developmental objectives as well as the
project's outputs in relation to the inputs, costs, and implementing time. It also examines the project's compliance
with the application of the incremental cost concept. Cost-effective factors include:
Compliance with the incremental cost criteria (e.g. GEF funds are used to finance a component of a project
that would not have taken place without GEF funding.) and securing co-funding and associated funding.
The project completed the planned activities and met or exceeded the expected outcomes in terms of
achievement of Global Environmental and Development Objectives according to schedule, and as cost-
effective as initially planned.
The project used either a benchmark approach or a comparison approach (did not exceed the costs levels of
similar projects in similar contexts). A benchmark approach in climate change and ozone projects
measures cost-effectiveness using internationally accepted threshold such as 10$/ton of carbon equivalent
reduced, and thresholds for the phase out of specific ozone depleting substances measured in terms of
dollars spent per kg ($/kg) of each type of ODS reduced.
Monitoring & Evaluation. Monitoring is the periodic oversight of a process, or the implementation of an activity,
which seeks to establish the extent to which inputs, work schedules, other required actions and outputs are
proceeding according to plan, so that timely action can be taken to correct the deficiencies detected. Evaluation is a
process by which program inputs, activities and results are analyzed and judged explicitly against benchmarks or
baseline conditions using performance indicators. This will allow project managers and planners to make decisions
based on the evidence of information on the project implementation stage, performance indicators, level of funding
still available, etc, building on the project's logical framework.
Monitoring and Evaluation includes activities to measure the project's achievements such as identification of
performance indicators, measurement procedures, and determination of baseline conditions. Projects are required
to implement plans for monitoring and evaluation with adequate funding and appropriate staff and include activities
such as description of data sources and methods for data collection, collection of baseline data, and stakeholder
participation. Given the long-term nature of many GEF projects, projects are also encouraged to include long-term
monitoring plans that are sustainable after project completion.
Any issues related to the quality of backstopping and quality assurance and control of project deliverables listed in
the project document should be addressed in this section.
57
ANNEX 2
MISSION SCHEDULE
OKAVANGO EVALUATION MISSION
MISSION ONE
SEPTEMBER
Thu 14
Start work at homebase; documents review
Fri 15
Documents review, mission planning
Sat 16
Documents review, mission planning
Sun17
PT departs Wellington for Singapore, via Auckland
PT departs Singapore and arrives Johannesburg
Mon 18
Mission planning; scope of work; documents review
NBA departs Accra
NBA arrives Johannesburg
PT apply for Angola Visa
Tue 19
Team assembles; Mission planning; scope of work; documents review
0930
Briefing with Nik Sekhran
Telecon with Andy Hudson, UNDP/GEF, NY
Telecon with Jake Burke, FAO, Rome
Wed 20
Mission planning; scope of work; documents review
PT collect Angola visa
Thu 21
Team travels Johannesburg to Luanda via Windhoek
0830
FAO - Dr Anatolio Ndong Mba, ResRep; Ms Baktha Boulam, Admin Officer; Mr Paulo Vicente, ARR
1100
PMU - Manuel Quintino, PM
Fri 22
1400
OKACOM Eng Armindo Gomez da Silva, Co-Chair
1500
OKACOM Mr Isidro Pinheiro, Commissioner
1600
OBSC Mr Carlos Andrade, Mr Paulo Emilio
Sat 23
Consolidation of information from consultations, drafting
Sun 24
Consolidation of information from consultations, drafting
0900
UNDP - Mr Pierre Francoise Pirlot, ResRep
Mon 25
1000
UNDP Dr Gita Welch, Country Director; Ms Gabriela do Nascimento, Prog Assoc, Focal Point.
1000
ACADIR NGO Mr Jose Neto, President
Tue 26
Telecon with Dieudonne Koguiyagda, Project Budget Holder, Accra
Further discussions with PM
Wed 27
Consolidation of information, documents review and drafting
Thu 28
Team travels Luanda to Windhoek
0900
RAISON Mr John Mendelsohn, Director
1000
UNDP Mr Lebogang Motlana, DRR
Fri 29
1100
FAO Mr Moketsi Mokati, ResRep
1200
UNDP Ms Akiko Yamamoto, Prog Analyst
1400
Fisheries, DWA Dr Clinton Hay
Sat 30
Consolidation of information from consultations, drafting
OCTOBER
Sun 01
Consolidation of information from consultations, drafting
0830
NNF Dr Chris Brown, Exec Director, Mr Mwazi Mwazi Project Coordinator (Every River Project)
0930
IRBM Shirley Bethune, Project Coordinator
1100
Mr Piet Heyns, OKACOM Commissioner
Mon 02
1230
Dr Stefan de Wet, OBSC Member
1400
Hydrology Mr Van Langenhove Guido, Deputy Director
1500
SSDC Dr Hartmut Krugmann, former Project Manager
0830
Ms Laura Namene, OBSC Member
Tue 03
1430
Ms Patricia Skyer, USAID-Namibia
Drafting of preliminary draft
0900
OKACOM - Amagulu Ndeutuapo, Commissioner
1430
UNDP - Simon Nhongo, Res Rep
Wed 04
1500
Debrief at UNDP
Drafting of preliminary draft
Team travels Windhoek to Gaborone via Johannesburg
Thu 05
Drafting of preliminary draft
0730
OKACOM Interim Secretariat - Mr Chaminda Rajapaksi; IRBM Project - Mr Scott McCormack
0900
OKACOM Mr Stevie Monna, Commissioner
1100
OKACOM Mr Gabaake Gabaake, Commissioner
Fri 06
1400
UNDP Mr Leonard Dikobe
1500
UNDP Resident Representative
1530
FAO
0900
Every River Project Mr Monty Montshiwa
Sat 07
Final drafting effort for preliminary draft
Share preliminary draft with UNDP, OKACOM Secretariat, PM and FAO
Sun 08
0900
Team travels Gaborone to Maun
0900
Ms Portia Segomelo, Coordinator Okavango Delta Management Plan
Mon 09
1100
Dr Naidu Kurugundla, Head Aquatic Vegetation Control, Department of Water Affairs
1400
Dr Nkobi Moleele, Nat Coordinator GEF Biokavango Project, HOORC
0900
Mr Mafila Malesu, District Tourism Officer, Department of Tourism
Tue 10
1100
Mr K Baeti, Head Water Resources Section, Dept Water Affairs
1400
Mr Sibangani Mosojane, Distriuct Wildlife Coordinator, Department of Wildlife and National parks
Wed 11
1400
Team travels Maun to Gaborone
58
1700
OKACOM - Dr Akolang Tombale, Commissioner
Follow-up meetings with stakeholders
Thu 12
1600
USAID Mr Wayne McDonald, Director Regional Project Implementation; Mr Chris Schaan, IRBM Project CTO
Fri 13
Drafting
Sat 14
Drafting
Sun 15
Drafting
Mon 16
Drafting
Tue 17
Final drafting
NBA departs Gaborone, transit Johannesburg and arrives Accra
Wed 18
Continue final drafting
Thu 19
PT departs Gaborone, transits Johannesburg
PT transit in Singapore
Fri 20
Dispatch draft Evaluation Report to UNDP and FAO
UNDP to distribute Draft Evaluation Report to all stakeholders and all those we consulted
Sat 21
PT arrives Auckland in transit and on to Wellington
MISSION TWO
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received
Tue 28
Follow-up consultations as required, phone/email, etc
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received
Wed 29
Follow-up consultations as required, phone/email, etc
Thu 30
PT departs Wellington, transits Auckland and on to Singapore
PT departs Singapore and arrives Johannesburg
Fri 01
Mission planning and logistics
NBA departs Accra
NBA arrives Johannesburg
Evaluation team reassembles and collates comments received
Sat 02
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received
Follow-up consultations as required, phone/email, etc
Sun 03
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received
Mon 04
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received
Tue 05
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received; preparation of presentation
Wed 06
Re-drafting, taking into account comments received; preparation of presentation
Thu 07
0900
Final presentation to UNDP, PSC, OKACOM, and other stakeholders
Fri 08
PT and NBA depart Johannesburg
NBA arrives Accra
Sat 09
PT arrives and transits Singapore
Sun 10
PT arrives Auckland, in transit and on to Wellington
59
ANNEX 3
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AND CONSULTED
Mendelsohn, John and Selma el Obeid (2004) Okavango River, The Flow of a Lifeline. Struik
Publishers, Cape Town.
Okavango Delta Management Plan Project (2006) Draft Management Plan Executive Summary.
Okavango Delta Management Plan Project Secretariat, Maun.
Turton, Anthony (Ed) (2002) Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development : Hydropolitical
drivers in the Okavango Basin. African Waters Issues Research Unit, Pretoria.
Robinson, Peter (2003) Angola Water Policy Review. SADC, Water Sector. GTZ.
Angola, Republic of (2003) Strategy for the development of the water sector. Ministry of Energy
and Water. Luanda
Angola, Republic of (2004) National Water Sector Management Project Mid-Term Review.
Ministry of Energy and Water. Luanda.
Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana and the
Republic of Namibia on the Establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water
Commission. 1994
Krugmann, Hartmut CTA/Project Manager (2005) Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Management of the Okavango River Basin (EPSMO). UNTS/RAF/010/GEF. Inception Report, 04
April 2005
Namibia, Government of (2000) National Water Policy Framework for Equitable, Efficient and
Sustainable Water Resources Management and Water Services. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
Rural Development, Windhoek.
Holtz, Uwe (2003) Namibia in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and their Relationship to the
Combating of Desertification The Role of Parliaments. Bonn University.
Namibia, Government of (1995) Namibia'a Environmental Assessment policy for Sustainable
Development and Environmental Conservation.
Namibia, Government of (2004) Water Act.
DHI Water & Environment (2005) Hydrology and Water Resources : Okavango Delta Management
plan. Department of Water Affairs and Department of Environmental Affairs, Gaborone.
OKACOM Interim Secretariat (undated) OKACOM Brochure, Gaborone.
University of Botswana (undated) Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre Booklet. Maun
SIDA (undated) Every River Has its People Project. Brochure. Windhoek.
Other documents
- Project Document
- Rules and Procedures of the UN System for Project Execution
- Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs/ APRs)
- Project Quarterly Reports
- Minutes of PSC meeting
- Minutes of OKACOM Meetings, documenting OKACOM Policies
- Other OKACOM documents made available by the Interim Secretariat
60
WEBSITES VISITED AND CONSULTED
Every River Has its People Project http://www.everyriver.net/PrjBakgr.html
OKACOM Home Page http://www.okacom.org/English/pages/home.htm
International Rivers Network http://www.irn.org/programs/okavango/
Okavango Delta Peoples of Botswana http://www.mindspring.com/~okavango/
Global International waters Assessment (GIWA) http://www.giwa.net/publications/r44.phtml
UNDP Office in Angola http://mirror.undp.org/angola/
UNDP Office in Namibia http://www.undp.un.na/env/undp-env-home.htm
UNDP Office in Botswana http://www.unbotswana.org.bw/undp/environment.html
IW Southeast Asia Regional Learning Centre http://www.iwsea.org/information/TDA_SAP
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN http://www.fao.org/dcrep/W741B/w7414b
61
ANNEX 4
PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS MET AND/OR
CONSULTED
Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM)
Mr Armindo Mario Gomez da Silva, Co-Chair, Angola
Mr Isidro Pinheiro, Commissioner, Angola
Mr Piet Heyns, Commissioner, Namibia
Mr WM Ndeutapo Amagulu, Commissioner, Namibia
Mr Akolang Tombale, Co-Chair, Botswana
Mr Gabaake Gabaake, Commissioner, Botswana
Mr Stevie Monna, Commissioner, Botswana
Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC)
Mr Carlos Andrade, Member, Angola
Mr Paolo Emilio, Member, Angola
Mr Stefen de Wet, Member, Namibia
Ms Laura Namene, Member, Namibia
Ms Portia Segomelo, Member, Botswana
Mr Kalaote Kalaote, Member, Botswana
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Mr Andy Hudson, GEF/UNDP Principal Technical Advisor
Mr Nik Sekhran, Regional Coordinator Biodiversity/ International Waters, GEF/UNDP
Mr Pierre-Francois Pirlot, UNDP Resident Representative, UN Resident Coordinator, Angola
Ms Gita Welch, Country Director, Angola
Ms Gabriela do Nascimento, Programme Associate, Angola
Mr Simon R Nhongo, Resident Representative, Namibia
Mr Lebogang Motlana, Deputy Resident Representative, Namibia
Ms Akiko Yamamoto, Programme Officer, Environment Unit, Namibia
Ms Viola Morgan, Deputy Resident Representative, Botswana
Mr Leonard Dikobe, Programme Specialist Energy & Environment, Botswana
Mr Hiro Okuda, Programme Officer Environment, Botswana
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Mr Jacob Burke, Senior Water Policy Officer, AGLW, Rome
Mr Anatolio Ndong Mba, Representative in Angola
Mr Paolo Vicente, Assistant Representative in Angola
Ms Bakhta Boulam, Administrative Officer in Angola
Mr Fernandez, Programme Officer, Angola
Mr Dieudonné Koguiyagda, Project Budget Holder, FAO Regional Office for Africa, Accra
Mr Moeketsi Mokati, Representative in Namibia
Mr David Tibe, Assistant Representative (Programme), Botswana
Environment Protection & Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin Project
Mr Manuel Quintino, Angola NCU Coordinator and Project Manager a.i.
Ms Eva Kulenga, Administration Assistant
ACADIR-Angola
Mr José Neto, President and CEO
Research and Information Services of Namibia (RAISON)
Mr John Mendelsohn
Ms Selma el-Obeid
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia
Mr Clinton Hay, Chief Fisheries Biologist
62
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia
Mr Guido van Langenhove, Deputy Director Hydrology, Department of Water Affairs
Meteorological Services, Ministry of Works Transport and Communications, Namibia
Mr Sepiso Mwangala, Climate and data Bank Manager
Mr B Ngonyi Mwalwa, Inspector, Instrumentation and Communications
Namibia Nature Foundation
Mr Chris Brown, Executive Director
Integrated River Basin Management Project (IRBM)
Mr Scott McCormick, Chief of Party for Okavango IRBM Project, Botswana
Ms Shirley Bethune, National Coordinator, Namibia
Mr Chaminda Rajapaksi, Coordinator, OKACOM Interim Secretariat, Botswana
Mr Chris Schaan, NRM Specialist
Southern Sustainable Development Corporation, Namibia
Mr Hartmut Krugmann, previous Project Manager
US Agency for International Development (USAID)
Mr Wayne McDonald, Office Director, Regional Programme Implementation Office
Ms Patricia Skyer, Senior CBNRM Advisor, Namibia
Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia
Mr IM Muhinda, Director of Administration and Support Services
Every River has its People Project
Mr Montshiwa M Montshiwa, Regional Project Manager, Botswana
Mr Mwazi Mwazi, Project Coordinator, Namibia
Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs, Botswana
Mr Naidu Kurungundla, Senior Botanist, Department of Water Affairs
Mr Koketso Baeti, Head Hydrology & Water Affairs, Department of Water Affairs
University of Botswana, Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre
Mr Lars Ramberg, Director
Mr Nkobi Moleele, Coordinator, UNDP/GEF Okavango Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Project
Mr Cornelius Van der Post, Snr Research Fellow Social Systems
Mr Piotr Wolski, Research Fellow, Groundwater Hydrology
Northwest District Council, Botswana
Mr Mafila Malesu, Tourism Officer
Ministry of Environment , Wildlife and Tourism, Botswana
Ms Felicity Rabolo, Tourism Officer, Department of Tourism
Mr Sibangani Mosojane, District Wildlife Coordinator, Dept of Wildlife & National Parks
UNEP/GEF/UNOPS Indigenous Vegetation Regional Project
Mr Gerrit B Bartels, Regional Coordinator, Botswana
Department of Environmental Affairs, Botswana
Mr Ruud Jansen, Chief Technical Advisor, Environment Support Programme
63
ANNEX 5
PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)
The Project Steering Committee sets the policy for the project and provides guidance and directions
to the Project Manager and other project stakeholders. It also supports UNDP which maintains
ultimate accountability to the GEF for the delivery of project products and the administration of
project funds. Project funds will be administered as per the Standard Basic Assistance Agreements
between UNDP and the Programme countries, which govern the use of UNDP funds. UNDP will
form part of and respect PSC decisions and agreements. If a situation arises where UNDP feels
that its mandate or its accountability could be compromised by a decision of the PSC, it will attempt
to resolve the matter by negotiation taking into account the signed ProDoc and the SBAA. If this
fails, it may decide to refer the matter to the GEF Secretariat, or withdraw the project.
Tasks of the Project Steering Committee
To set policy and provide strategic guidance to ensure the timely and cost-effective
realisation of project objectives
To review and recommend approval of Annual Work Plans
To monitor progress in project implementation against agreed Outcomes and Outputs
To validate Project Outputs, including the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis Study, the
Strategic Action Programme and other documents
To resolve conflicts and problem areas as needed to facilitate project delivery
To ensure that country commitments, including of co-financing, technical and operational
support, are met
Membership
The Project Steering Committee will comprise :
One representative from each of the participating Governments : Angola, Botswana and
Namibia (OKACOM Co-chairs or as the Governments so decide)
One representative for UNDP at Country Office level (suggested Resident Representative or
Country Director from Angola Country Office as the lead UNDP CO)
One representative from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit
One representative from FAO as Executing Agency
The following are also invited / expected to attend meetings :
Other members of OKACOM
Project Manager required to attend and report on progress
Project Budget Holder required to attend and present financial account
Members of OBSC to advise on technical issues that may arise
Relevant representatives of related projects in the Okavango Basin to advise on cooperative
and complementary activities
Rules of Procedure
The Project Steering Committee will be co-chaired by UNDP and OKACOM. UNDP will be
represented by the UNDP Angola Resident Representative or Country Director to provide continuity.
OKACOM will be represented by the relevant Commissioner of the country where the meeting is
being held.
The PSC will meet at least every six months and more frequently if considered necessary.
Meetings of the PSC will rotate between the participating countries, taking into account
logistical and resource considerations.
An agenda will be prepared by the PM in consultation with the co-chairs and taking into
account any issues raised by members, and circulated in good time to allow OKACOM and
others to consult
The PSC will make all its decisions through consensus.
64
The PSC will delegate representatives to sit on selection panels for consultants and service
vendors, if requested by UNDP.
The minimum number of members necessary to comprise a quorum will be determined by
the first meeting.
Members of the PSC may nominate an alternate to attend PSC meetings, in the event that
the designated representative is unable to attend. Alternates will be expected to be fully
briefed and able to make decisions on behalf of the permanent member.
An Annual Tripartite Review of the project will be chaired by UNDP, as part of a regular PSC
meeting. The TPR will approve the Annual Project Review (APR) and Annual Work Plan.
Decisions made at the PSC will be considered collective decisions of the Committee as a
whole and members undertake to stand by them following the meetings.
65
ANNEX 6
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS
SUPPLIED BY FAO
66
b
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Printed on: 02-OCT-06 11.21.42 (via FPMIS)
Financial Statement (Trust Funds)
Activity: TF2A24AS03216 (TF Project)
From: 1997-01 To: 2015-13
TF_Activity: TF2A24AS03216 121614 UNTS/RAF/010/GEF (Project) | Organization: N/A
Budget
Soft
Hard
Total
Actuals
Commitments
Available
Forecast
Projected
Commitment
Commitments
Commitments
and Actuals
Budget
Balance
5011 Salaries
624,336
0
0
0
286,525
286,525
337,811
0
337,811
Professional
(Parent
account)
5012 Salaries
67,000
0
0
0
41,234
41,234
25,766
0
25,766
General Service
(Parent
account)
5013
1,385,230
0
21,102
21,102
100,923
122,024
1,263,206
0
1,263,206
Consultants
(Parent
account)
5014 Contracts
500,000
0
0
0
59,351
59,351
440,649
0
440,649
(Parent
account)
5020 Locally
42,906
0
41,104
41,104
1,802
0
1,802
Contracted
Labour (Parent
account)
5021 Travel
943,187
0
0
0
152,917
152,917
790,270
0
790,270
(Parent
account)
5023 Training
485,991
0
0
0
475
475
485,516
0
485,516
(Parent
account)
5024
155,687
0
0
0
8,087
8,087
147,600
0
147,600
Expendable
Procurement
(Parent
account)
5025 Non
346,431
0
0
0
131,767
131,767
214,664
0
214,664
Expendable
Procurement
(Parent
account)
5027 Technical
78,845
0
30,340
30,340
48,505
0
48,505
Support
Services
(Parent
account)
5028 General
271,252
0
0
0
131,832
131,832
139,419
0
139,419
Operating
Expenses
(Parent
account)
5029 Support
490,090
0
0
0
93,635
93,635
396,455
0
396,455
Costs (Parent
account)
5040 General
44
0
118
118
<75>
0
<75>
Overhead
Expenses
(Parent
account)
Total Expenses
5,390,998
0
21,102
21,102
1,078,307
1,099,409
4,291,590
0
4,291,590
Printed on: 02-OCT-06 11.22.27 (via FPMIS)
74
Financial Statement (Trust Funds)
Activity: TF2A24AS03216 (TF Project)
From: 1997-11 To: 2015-13
TF_Activity: TF2A24AS03216 121614 UNTS/RAF/010/GEF (Project) | Organization: N/A
Budget
Soft
Hard
Total
Actuals
Commitment
Available
Foreca
Projected
Commitme
Commitment
Commitment
s and
Budget
st
Balance
nt
s
s
Actuals
5101 Base Salary At Actual -
0
111,812
111,812
<111,812
0
<111,812
Professional (Child account)
>
>
5102
0
19,822
19,822
<19,822>
0
<19,822>
Assignment/Mobility/Transitio
nal Allowances (Child
account)
5103 Post Adjustment (Child
0
65,902
65,902
<65,902>
0
<65,902>
account)
5104 Basic Medical
0
5,114
5,114
<5,114>
0
<5,114>
Insurance Plan - Professional
(Child account)
5105 Pension Plan -
0
34,052
34,052
<34,052>
0
<34,052>
Professional (Child account)
5116 Medical Costs -
0
0
0
222
222
<222>
0
<222>
Professional (Child account)
5125 Termination Indemnity -
0
<269>
<269>
269
0
269
Professional (Child account)
5128 Benefits At Standard -
0
52,161
52,161
<52,161>
0
<52,161>
Professional (Child account)
5150 Professional Staff cost
0
<2,291>
<2,291>
2,291
0
2,291
variance (Child account)
5299 Salaries Professional
0
0
0
0
0
Conversion (Child account)
5300 Salaries Professional
624,336
0
0
0
0
0
624,336
0
624,336
Budget (Child account)
5301 Base Salary At Actual -
0
18,484
18,484
<18,484>
0
<18,484>
General Service (Child
account)
5303 Basic Medical
0
11,301
11,301
<11,301>
0
<11,301>
Insurance Plan - General
Service (Child account)
5304 Pension Plan - General
0
3,562
3,562
<3,562>
0
<3,562>
Service (Child account)
5315 Medical Costs - General
0
664
664
<664>
0
<664>
Service (Child account)
5338 Benefits At Standard -
0
6,878
6,878
<6,878>
0
<6,878>
General Service (Child
account)
5350 General Service Staff
0
344
344
<344>
0
<344>
cost variance (Child account)
5499 Salaries General
0
0
0
0
0
Service Conversion (Child
account)
5500 Salaries General
67,000
0
0
0
0
0
67,000
0
67,000
Service Budget (Child
account)
5542 Consultants -
0
0
76
76
45,903
45,980
<45,980>
0
<45,980>
Internationally-recruited
(Child account)
5543 Consultants - Locally-
0
0
44,507
44,507
<44,507>
0
<44,507>
recruited (Child account)
5551 Consultants - National
0
21,025
21,025
10,513
31,538
<31,538>
0
<31,538>
Projects Personnel (Child
75
account)
5570 Consultants Budget
1,385,23
0
0
0
0
0
1,385,23
0
1,385,23
(Child account)
0
0
0
5571 Contracts - Services
0
0
0
0
38,902
38,902
<38,902>
0
<38,902>
(Child account)
5572 Contracts - Construction
0
0
20,449
20,449
<20,449>
0
<20,449>
(Child account)
5650 Contracts Budget (Child
500,000
0
0
500,000
0
500,000
account)
5651 Overtime (Child
0
206
206
<206>
0
<206>
account)
5652 Casual labour /
0
0
40,898
40,898
<40,898>
0
<40,898>
Temporary assistance (Child
account)
5660 Overtime Budget (Child
42,906
0
0
42,906
0
42,906
account)
5661 Duty Travel (Child
0
0
0
0
37,865
37,865
<37,865>
0
<37,865>
account)
5672 Rest and Recuperation
0
0
0
0
1,528
1,528
<1,528>
0
<1,528>
Travel (Child account)
5684 Travel - Consultants -
0
0
0
0
79,387
79,387
<79,387>
0
<79,387>
International (Child account)
5685 Travel - Consultants -
0
0
2,134
2,134
<2,134>
0
<2,134>
National (Child account)
5692 Travel - ATS/STS/TSS
0
0
0
0
10,729
10,729
<10,729>
0
<10,729>
(Child account)
5694 Travel - Training (Child
0
0
2,094
2,094
<2,094>
0
<2,094>
account)
5698 Travel - Non Staff (Child
0
0
0
0
19,180
19,180
<19,180>
0
<19,180>
account)
5900 Travel - Duty Budget
943,187
0
0
0
0
0
943,187
0
943,187
(Child account)
5905 Group Training Costs
0
0
475
475
<475>
0
<475>
(Child account)
5920 Training Budget (Child
485,991
0
0
0
0
0
485,991
0
485,991
account)
5924 Other Expendable
0
0
7,970
7,970
<7,970>
0
<7,970>
Equipment (Child account)
5925 General Office
0
83
83
<83>
0
<83>
Equipment - Contract For
Purchase (Child account)
5933 Other Office Supplies
0
0
34
34
<34>
0
<34>
(Child account)
6000 Expendable
155,687
0
0
0
0
0
155,687
0
155,687
Procurement Budget (Child
account)
6002 Communications
0
0
11,156
11,156
<11,156>
0
<11,156>
Equipment - Contract For
Purchase (Child account)
6004 Data Process Equip -
0
380
380
<380>
0
<380>
Mini/Micro Comput - Contr
For Purch (Child account)
6005 Data Processing
0
0
0
0
38,913
38,913
<38,913>
0
<38,913>
Equipment - Others -
Contract For Purchase (Child
account)
6006 Furniture - Contract For
0
0
22,145
22,145
<22,145>
0
<22,145>
Purchase (Child account)
6007 Printing And
0
0
145
145
<145>
0
<145>
Reproduction Equip -
Contract For Purchase (Child
account)
6010 Improvements To
0
10,950
10,950
<10,950>
0
<10,950>
76
Premises (Child account)
6011 Vehicles - Contract For
0
0
24,033
24,033
<24,033>
0
<24,033>
Purchase (Child account)
6012 Other Non-Expendable
0
0
15,618
15,618
<15,618>
0
<15,618>
Equipment - Contract For
Purchase (Child account)
6013 Security Equipment
0
8,428
8,428
<8,428>
0
<8,428>
(Child account)
6100 Non Expendable
346,431
0
0
0
0
0
346,431
0
346,431
Procurement Budget (Child
account)
6112 Projects Servicing
0
0
93,635
93,635
<93,635>
0
<93,635>
Costs (Child account)
6120 Technical Assistance to
0
0
30,340
30,340
<30,340>
0
<30,340>
Field Projects (Child account)
6130 Support Costs Budget
490,090
0
0
0
0
0
490,090
0
490,090
(Child account)
6150 Technical Support
78,845
0
0
78,845
0
78,845
Services Budget (Child
account)
6152 Miscellaneous (Child
0
0
0
0
32,337
32,337
<32,337>
0
<32,337>
account)
6172 Rental Of Premises
0
0
54,150
54,150
<54,150>
0
<54,150>
(Child account)
6175 Vehicles Operation And
0
0
3,105
3,105
<3,105>
0
<3,105>
Maintenance (Child account)
6176 Operation And
0
0
1,028
1,028
<1,028>
0
<1,028>
Maintenance Of Equipment
(Child account)
6177 Other Operating Costs
0
0
8,045
8,045
<8,045>
0
<8,045>
(Child account)
6178 Electricity (Child
0
0
2,165
2,165
<2,165>
0
<2,165>
account)
6181 Water (Child account)
0
0
260
260
<260>
0
<260>
6183 Insurance (Child
0
0
1,067
1,067
<1,067>
0
<1,067>
account)
6187 Postal And Pouch
0
0
72
72
<72>
0
<72>
Services (Child account)
6190 Other Communications
0
0
2,402
2,402
<2,402>
0
<2,402>
(Child account)
6207 Security Services (Child
0
0
23,565
23,565
<23,565>
0
<23,565>
account)
6251 Courier Services (Child
0
0
593
593
<593>
0
<593>
account)
6255 Telephone Costs (Child
0
0
3,043
3,043
<3,043>
0
<3,043>
account)
6300 General Operating
271,252
0
0
0
0
0
271,252
0
271,252
Expenses Budget (Child
account)
6303 Pouch & Remailing
0
0
44
44
<44>
0
<44>
(Child account)
6304 International Courier
0
0
75
75
<75>
0
<75>
(Child account)
6400 General Overhead
44
0
0
44
0
44
Expenses Budget (Child
account)
Total Expenses
5,390,99
0
21,102
21,102
1,078,30
1,099,409
4,291,59
0
4,291,59
8
7
0
0
77
V bPrinted on: 02-OCT-06 10.54.18 (Via FPMIS)
TF Project Status Report Split by Prior/Current/Future Years (Annual Values)
Activity: TF2A24AS03216
Expenses Include: C. Actuals + Hard CMTs + Soft CMTs
Up to Period: 2006-13
TF Activity: TF2A24AS03216 121614 UNTS/RAF/010/GEF (Project) | Organisation: N/A
Prior Years
Current Year
Cumulative Up To
Future Years
Project Total
2006 Up To:2006-
2006-13
13
2003
2004
2005
2006
CUMULATIVE
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL
Bud
Expe
Bal
Bud
Exp
Bal
Bud
Exp
Bal
Budg
Exp
Bala
Budg
Expe
Bala
Budg
Exp
Bala
Bud
Exp
Bal
Bud
Exp
Bal
Bud
Exp
Bala
Budg
Expe
Bala
get
nses
anc
get
ense
anc
gets ense
anc
ets
ense
nce
ets
nses
nce
ets
ense
nce
get
ense
anc
get
ense
anc
gets
ense
nce
ets
nses
nce
s
e
s
s
e
s
e
s
s
s
s
e
s
s
e
s
Fund
0
<894
894
<8,6
8,6
<10,
10,
1,24
<1,2
0
<912
912,
0
<912
912,
s
,559
,55
97>
97
427
427
2
42>
,441
441
,441
441
Recei
>
9
>
>
>
ved
3001
0
<894
894
<8,6
8,6
<10,
10,
1,24
<1,2
0
<912
912,
0
<912
912,
Contri
,559
,55
97>
97
427
427
2
42>
,441
441
,441
441
bution
>
9
>
>
>
s
Recei
ved In
Advan
ce
(Pare
nt)
Expe
53,
53,1
0
86,
86,6
0
672
672,
0
2,50
286,
2,21
3,31
1,09
2,21
1,81
0
1,81
0
0
0
0
0
0
262,
0
262,
5,39
1,09
4,29
nditur
196
96
678
78
,97
974
0,63
560
4,07
3,48
9,40
4,07
5,11
5,11
398
398
0,99
9,40
1,59
e
4
5
5
4
9
5
7
7
8
9
0
5011
0
0
0
40,
40,3
0
201
201,
0
206,
44,9
161,
447,
286,
161,
172,
0
172,
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,79
0
4,79
624,
286,
337,
Salari
336
36
,20
205
000
84
016
541
525
016
000
000
5
5
336
525
811
es
5
Profes
sional
(Pare
nt)
5012
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,
19,2
0
26,4
21,9
4,41
45,6
41,2
4,41
35,5
0
35,5
0
0
0
0
0
0
<14,
0
<14,
67,0
41,2
25,7
Salari
250
50
00
83
7
50
34
7
00
00
150
150
00
34
66
es
>
>
78
Gener
al
Servic
e
(Pare
nt)
5013
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,
44,7
0
817,
77,2
740,
862,
122,
740,
478,
0
478,
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,7
0
44,7
1,38
122,
1,26
Consu
761
61
380
64
116
141
024
116
290
290
99
99
5,23
024
3,20
ltants
0
6
(Pare
nt)
5014
48,
48,9
0
200,
10,4
189,
248,
59,3
189,
200,
0
200,
51,0
0
51,0
500,
59,3
440,
Contr
901
01
000
50
550
901
51
550
000
000
99
99
000
51
649
acts
(Pare
nt)
5020
206
206
0
21,
21,3
0
19,2
19,5
<369
40,7
41,1
<369
2,50
0
2,50
0
0
0
<32
0
<32
42,9
41,1
1,80
Locall
329
29
00
69
>
35
04
>
0
0
9>
9>
06
04
2
y
Contr
acted
Labou
r
(Pare
nt)
5021
13,
13,1
0
19,
19,4
0
104
104,
0
497,
15,6
481,
634,
152,
481,
321,
0
321,
0
0
0
0
0
0
<13,
0
<13,
943,
152,
790,
Travel
131
31
436
36
,75
750
034
00
434
351
917
434
865
865
029
029
187
917
270
(Pare
0
>
>
nt)
5023
0
0
0
0
0
0
475
475
0
203,
0
203,
203,
475
203,
257,
0
257,
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,5
0
24,5
485,
475
485,
Traini
000
000
475
000
991
991
25
25
991
516
ng
(Pare
nt)
5024
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,6
7,69
0
45,6
395
45,2
53,3
8,08
45,2
110,
0
110,
0
0
0
0
0
0
<7,6
0
<7,6
155,
8,08
147,
Expen
92
2
76
81
68
7
81
011
011
92>
92>
687
7
600
dable
Procu
remen
t
(Pare
nt)
5025
23,
23,7
0
17,
17,5
0
68,
68,7
0
177,
21,7
155,
287,
131,
155,
25,0
0
25,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34,3
0
34,3
346,
131,
214,
Non
706
06
597
97
755
55
000
09
291
058
767
291
00
00
73
73
431
767
664
Expen
dable
Procu
remen
t
(Pare
79
nt)
5027
21,
21,9
0
18,8
8,36
10,4
40,7
30,3
10,4
13,1
0
13,1
24,9
0
24,9
78,8
30,3
48,5
Techn
980
80
15
0
55
95
40
55
41
41
09
09
45
40
05
ical
Suppo
rt
Servic
es
(Pare
nt)
5028
11,
11,5
0
1,1
1,17
0
72,
72,6
0
62,8
46,5
16,2
148,
131,
16,2
33,8
0
33,8
0
0
0
0
0
0
89,3
0
89,3
271,
131,
139,
Gener
524
24
79
9
622
22
00
07
93
125
832
93
09
09
18
18
252
832
419
al
Opera
ting
Expen
ses
(Pare
nt)
5029
4,8
4,83
0
7,8
7,88
0
61,
61,1
0
227,
19,7
207,
301,
93,6
207,
165,
0
165,
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,8
0
23,8
490,
93,6
396,
Suppo
36
6
80
0
179
79
330
40
590
225
35
590
010
010
55
55
090
35
455
rt
Costs
(Pare
nt)
5040
44
44
0
75
75
0
118
118
0
0
0
0
<75
0
<75
44
118
<75>
Gener
>
>
al
Overh
ead
Expen
ses
(Pare
nt)
Total
53,
53,1
0
86,
86,6
0
672
672,
0
2,50
286,
2,21
3,31
1,09
2,21
1,81
0
1,81
0
0
0
0
0
0
262,
0
262,
5,39
1,09
4,29
Expe
196
96
678
78
,97
974
0,63
560
4,07
3,48
9,40
4,07
5,11
5,11
398
398
0,99
9,40
1,59
nditur
4
5
5
4
9
5
7
7
8
9
0
e
Bala
<841
77,9
662,
287,
186,
0
0
0
0
186,
nce
,363
81
547
802
968
968
>
80
REMAINING FUNDS, BY OUTPUT AS ON 15 OCTOBER 2006
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COMPONENT S/OUTPUTS
ORIGINAL BUDGET ESTIMATES AS IN
ESTIMATES BASED
EXPENDITURES AS
REMAINING FUNDS AS
PROJECT DOCUMENT
ON BUD REV "B"
ON 15 OCTOBER
ON 15 OCTOBER
TOTAL
CO-
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
FINANCING
Component A: Joint Management
Output A1: Expertise
731,700
35,000
696,700
1,875,898
789,000
1,086,898
Output A2: Stake Holder Participation
934,850
100,000
834,850
386,050
0
386,050
Output A3: Policy initiatives
360,800
315,000
45,800
291,571
0
291,571
Output A4: Monitoring and evaluation
161,675
0
161,675
90,583
48,000
42583
Total A:
2,189,025
450,000
1,739,0252
2,644,102
837,000
1,807,102
Component B: Completed TDA
Output B1: Basin water resource analysis
1,966,820
1,426,000
540,820
603,428
130,000
473,428
Output B2: Socio-economic analysis
720,200
200,000
520,200
464,418
0
464,418
Output B3: Super-imposed frameworks
94,069
0
94,069
103,000
59,000
44,000
Output B4: Environmental assets
117,630
0
117,630
125,000
0
125,000
Output B5: Alternatives
500,576
0
500,576
116,367
0
116,367
Output B6: Water management models
127,450
0
127,450
116,367
0
116,367
Output B7: Criteria
90,140
0
90,140
44,100
0
44,100
Total B:
3,616,885 1,626,000
1,990,885
1,572,680
189,000
1,383,680
Component C: SAP Formulation
Output C1: Technical & Policy implications of options
111,660
0
111,660
217,128
0
217,128
Output C2: Joint Management plan negotiated
417,040
0
417,040
214,000
0
214,000
Output C3: Commitments defined
137,190
0
137,190
83,000
0
83,000
Output C4: SAP document produced
245,210
0
245,210
24,000
0
24,000
Output C5: SAP finance mobilized
259,900
0
259,900
146,000
0
146,000
Total C:
1,171,000
0
1,171,000
684,128
0
684,128
Project Support Services
490,091
490,090
490,090
98,478
391,612
TOTAL
7,467,000 2,076,000
5,391,000
5,391,000
1,124,478
4,266,522
81
GEF OKAVANGO PROJECT INTERIM EVALUATION
ANNEX 7.
PROGRESS AS REPORTED BY THE PMU UP TO
OCTOBER 2006
Progress with the project objectives and targets
OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS
PROGRESS ACCORDING TO THE PMU
Project Objective
Very little progress was made to meet the project's objective. Although sharing the same
To alleviate imminent and long-term
River Basin, apparently the three riparian countries still have different perspectives on the
threats to the linked land and water
utilisation of the Okavango natural resources, mainly soil and water. Due to the fact that
systems of the Okavango River through
the establishment of National Coordination Units did not happen simultaneously (the
the joint management of the Okavango
Botswana's NCU is still to be established), the PMU had difficulties in promoting dialogue
River Basin water resources and the
among the three riparian countries towards setting strategies for the joint management of
protection of its linked aquatic ecosystems,
the Okavango River Basin.
comprising all wetlands, fluvial and
lacustrine systems, and their biological
diversity
Purpose One
Very little has been achieved. But it is important to mention the establishment of the PMU
To overcome current policy, institutional,
in Luanda and the establishment of the Angolan and Namibian National Coordination
human resource and information barriers
Units and the Angolan and Namibian Intersectoral Committees.
and constraints to co-ordination and joint
management of the basin
There is some effort by the PMU, through the National Coordination Units to bring the
three riparian countries together (co-ordination and joint management) of the Okavango
River Basin. However, currently there are still policy, institutional and human resources
barriers. In relation to information, there is a great need and willing by three countries to
share hydrological information being generated in the Basin. As a result of this, the work
of the OKACOM/OBSC Hydrologic Task Force was resumed in July 2006. Terms of
Reference for the Task Force were designed and will be submitted to OKACOM for
approval. The riparian countries plus two major projects with activities in the Okavango
River Basin, namely GEF EPSMO and IRBM have planned to meet regularly and discuss
issues related the hydrological work to be carried out in the Basin as a whole. With the
completion of 5 hydrometric stations in the Angolan portion of the Okavango Basin, the
sharing of information among the riparian countries is to start very soon. This exercise will
be made on a regular basis, allowing all the actors to know what is happening in the
neighbouring countries. Another relevant element of the exercise on sharing hydrological
information is the harmonisation of data that was set one of the main priorities by the
riparian countries.
Purpose Two
There is already a preliminary TDA carried out during the PDF-B phase. This TDA
To complete a transboundary analysis to
document should be seen as a basis for the completion of the TDA work envisaged by the
underpin a programme of joint
project. However, the gaps identified in preliminary TDA should be updated to bring the
management
participating countries to the same level. One of the elements to be fed into the TDA is the
generation of the hydrological information on the Okavango River Basin. For this effect 5
out 12 hydrometric stations were rehabilitated in the Angolan portion of the Okavango
River Basin with the financial support of the project. The rehabilitated stations entered into
operation at the end of May 2006 and were handed over to the Government of Kuando
Kubango province, through the Provincial Directorate of Energy and Water (DPA). Any
important element linked with the TDA is the establishment of bodies like the National
Coordination Units (NCU), the National Intersectoral Committees (NISC) and the
Technical Task Teams (TTT), which are instrumental for the TDA exercise. Currently
Angola and Namibia have set up their National Coordination Units (NCU). Namibia has
also set up its National Intersectoral Committee (NISC). Members of the NISC-Angola are
already nominated by their parent ministries and NISC-Angola itself is in a process to be
established. Angola and Namibia have also identified their potential candidates to be part
of the Technical Task Group (TTT). NCU, NISC and TTT are bodies that will facilitate the
TDA work at regional level. The establishment of NCU, NISC and the nomination of
candidates for the TTT in Botswana is not yet done
Purpose Three
To facilitate the formulation of an
implementable programme of joint
management to address threats to the
basin's linked land and water systems
Specific Target One
Very little progress has been made on the TDA. However, some progress has been made
A Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
in relation to: a) rehabilitation of the first 5 hydrometric stations in the Angolan portion of
(TDA)
the Okavango Basin; b) review of relevant GIS systems in all three riparian countries that
recommended a framework for setting up an Okavango River Basin-wide GIS system for
the project
Specific Target Two
There is no progress in relation to the SAP. The SAP is an exercise that will take place
A Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
only after the completion of the TDA. As it was mentioned above very little progress was
achieved on the TDA.
82
GEF OKAVANGO PROJECT INTERIM EVALUATION
Progress achieved with project components and outputs
COMPONENTS AND OUTPUTS
AS REPORTED BY PMU
Component A: Strengthened mechanisms for joint management of the ORB
Output A1 Expertise in the riparian countries strengthened to drive both
inter-governmental and intra-governmental technical and policy initiatives in
river basin planning and management for the ORB
Output A2 Basin-wide mechanisms for stakeholder participation in basin
management established and tested to ensure consensus, replicability and
taking to scale
Output A3 Policy, legal, institutional and human resource initiatives launched
and linked to national policy reviews to co-ordinate river basin resource
management approaches across the basin
Output A4 Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures for SAP implementation
Component B: Completed transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA)
Output B1 Water resource assessment and analysis completed to determine
The 5 rehabilitated hydrometric stations in the
hydro-environmental processes, characteristics and limits
Angolan portion of the Okavango Basin entered
into operation on 29 May 2006. It is expected
that the new set of hydrological information to be
gathered will facilitate a better interpretation (in
terms of quality) of water resources available in
the Basin and how water resources ca equally be
used by the riparian countries.
Output B2 Socio-economic analysis completed to establish current and
future patterns of river basin resource use and levels of demand
Output B3 Water resource and socio-economic analysis super-imposed to
define environmental system limits and parameters
Output B4 Environmental assets of the ORB described and valued to
structure models
Output B5 Comprehensive set of water resource alternatives for the ORB
assessed to structure model scenarios and tested for replicability and taking
to scale
Output B6 Water resource development and management models used to
produce water resource management options
Output B7 Economic and environmental criteria produced to guide water
resource planning and development decisions
Component C: SAP Formulation
Output C1 Technical and policy implications of joint management options
The project did not reach yet this stage.
evaluated
Output C2 Joint management plan
Output C3 Commitments to SAP implementation defined including, policy,
legal, institutional, human resource arrangements
Output C4 SAP document produced and endorsed by riparian governments
through integration of outputs C1- C3 in collaborative process with basin
stakeholders and SAP partners
Output C5 SAP finance mobilised in preparation for implementation
83
Document Outline