March 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by DNA Economics under Contract No. RFTOP-674-13-000004. SOUTHERN AFRICA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Front cover picture caption Gumare PILUMP Committee, Gumare, Botswana Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those stakeholders with whom we had the opportunity to discuss this evaluation; without your valuable inputs this evaluation would not have been possible. We must give our special thanks to the SAREP staff and especially to the Chief of Party, Steve Johnson, and his Deputy, Brian App. The value of your support in providing documents, assisting with the stakeholder consultation and field mission, as well as the time spent speaking with us cannot be under estimated. We would also like to thank the SAREP staff who accompanied us as we travelled round the Okavango basin and the three riparian states. Specifically we would like to mention Thokomelo Phutego, Gemolemo Mekete, Robyn Tompkins, Friedrich Alpers and Jose Neto in this respect. Finally we would like to thank Elzadia Washington from USAID in Namibia for her support in securing a meeting with the OKACOM Commissioner Abraham Nehemia in Windhoek, and Erik Pacific and Stephen Horn for their advice and assistance throughout this study. SOUTHERN AFRICA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SAREP’s objective is to support the initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to integrate improved water and sanitation services with strategies that address threats to ecosystem services and biodiversity within priority shared river basins and to strengthen regional capacity to adapt and respond to effects of climate change. SAREP focuses primarily on the trans-boundary Okavango River Basin (ORB) and the Caprivi section of the Zambezi River Basin in Namibia; activities have expanded into the neighboring Linyanti-Kwando sub-basin. MARCH 2013 RFTOP-674-13-000004 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... iv Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................ 1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation methods & limitations .................................................................................................................. 4 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................................ 8 Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 38 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ...................................................................................................... 61 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................................................ 68 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................................................ 76 Annex IV: Sources of Information ............................................................................................................... 89 Annex V: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................... 104 Annex VI: Details of PILUMP clusters and livelihood opportunities in PILUMP areas ............................. 110 Annex VII: Photographs taken during field mission .................................................................................. 119 Annex VIII: Detailed findings for each result area ..................................................................................... 126 i ACRONYMS ACADIR Associação de Conservação do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Integrado Rural AFIS Advanced Fire Information System CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management CC Climate Change CCA Climate Change Adaptation CI Conservation International CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation COP Chief of Party – SAREP DCOP Deputy Chief of Party - SAREP DoE Department of Education DSS Decision Support System DWSSC Directorate of Water Supply and Sanitation Coordination, MAWF, Namibia EIA Environment Impact Assessment EMMP Environmental Management and Mitigation Plan EPSMO Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin Project (UNDP-GEF) FANR Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Division of the SADC Secretariat GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System IRBM Integrated River Basin Management IRDNC Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation IUCN The World Conservation Union IWQM Integrated Water Quality Management IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management KAZA Kavango Zambezi Trans-frontier Conservation Area KRA Key Result Area LUCIS Land Use Conflict Identification System MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia MDG Millennium Development Goals M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOMs Management Orientated Monitoring Systems NAP National Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organization NR Nature Reserves OBSC Okavango Basin Steering Committee ii ODMP Okavango Delta Management Plan OKACOM Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission OKASec OKACOM Secretariat OKBMC Okavango Basin Management Committee - Namibia O&M Operations and Management ORB Okavango River Basin PA Protected Area PACSE PArticipation for Communities in Sanitation Education PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PILUMP Participatory, Integrated Land Use Management Plans PMU Program Management Unit REA Rapid Environmental Assessments REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SA South Africa SADC Southern Africa Development Community SAF Strategic Activities Fund SAP Strategic Action Plan SAREP Southern Africa Regional Environment Program SEA Strategic Environment Assessment SIAPAC Social Impact Assessment and Policy Analysis Corporation (Pty) Ltd. SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SLM Sustainable Land Management TBA Trans-Boundary Areas TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis TC Technical Committee TLB Tawana Land Board UCT University of Cape Town UNDP/GEF United Nations Development Program / Global Environment Fund UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special Session US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USFS United States Forest Service WASH WAter, Sanitation and Hygiene WATSAN Water and Sanitation (Committee) WSS Water Supply and Sanitation iii WWF World Wide Fund for Nature iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of this assignment is to conduct a performance evaluation of the Southern Africa Regional Environment Program. The findings are expected to inform the design to extend the project into the option period and if a positive decision in taken in this respect to inform the activities in the option period. The evaluation will address the following key evaluation questions under three themes related to the project’s results, management, and promising practices: Results • To what extent is the SAREP Project likely to be successful in achieving results toward its stated objectives? • What have been the key drivers of and limitations on performance to date? • To what extent has the project made progress towards improving the effectiveness and sustainability of OKACOM and related organizations that affect river basin management? Management • To what extent has the management structure as implemented supported, or hindered, performance? Promising Practices • Based on the findings and analysis of the preceding questions, what are the key strategic, programmatic, technical, and managerial features of the project that should be taken into account when implementing new transboundary environmental management initiatives in the region? The key audiences for the evaluation are USAID, those implementing the SAREP program, and key individuals in OKACOM, specifically the Commissioners, OBSC members and OKASec. PROJECT BACKGROUND SAREP’s objective is to support the initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to integrate improved water and sanitation services with strategies that address threats to ecosystem services and biodiversity within priority shared river basins and to strengthen regional capacity to adapt and respond to effects of climate change. SAREP focuses primarily on the trans-boundary Okavango River Basin (ORB) and the Caprivi section of the Zambezi River Basin in Namibia; activities have expanded into the neighboring Linyanti-Kwando sub-basin. SAREP is coordinated primarily by the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) and its technical advisory committee, the Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC). Towards the end of the first year of the program a joint steering committee for SAREP was established through OKASec. The steering committee allowed the countries to have a level of supervision in the implementation processes in their respective parts of the basin. EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The overall design of the evaluation was based on evaluation matrices that were developed to address the evaluation questions. Each evaluation matrix identified evaluation sub-questions under a number of v headings. The evaluation matrices also identified potential sources of evidence which can be used to address the evaluation sub-questions. Based on the evaluation matrices we have prepared questionnaires for high level decision makers, the SAREP management and technical staff, project implementers and communities. These questionnaires were used for individual and group consultations with key stakeholders. The results of these interactions were documented within the framework of the evaluation matrices. We also travelled to project sites which enabled us to make on-the-ground observations as well as meet stakeholders and communities. Relevant documents were collected and reviewed. These various evaluation methods allowed triangulation whereby two or more methods are used to check and confirm a finding or observation. Analysis of the primary and secondary information collected was used to document findings, draw conclusions and make recommendations. We tested these findings through further interaction with key stakeholders. The main challenges we faced during the evaluation related to time constraints, the difficulties of arranging appointments with key stakeholders, and access to Angola. Plans were made to address these challenges and we do not believe they had a major influence on the outcome of the evaluation. The scope of work for this evaluation does not include an analysis of financing, funding flows and expenditure so these matters have not been reviewed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Our key findings and primary conclusions for the SAREP result areas are summarized below against what progress could have reasonably have been expected to have been achieved at this stage of program implementation; green indicates on target, yellow significant progress and red limited progress. Activity / Finding Primary Conclusion KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin KRA 1.1 Science-based systems support regional planning. NAPs completed. DSS developed and capacitation commenced KRA 1.2 More effective services provided by institutions Valuable support provided to OKACOM and river basin management authorities. Discussion concerning further support KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services KRA 2.1 Threats to biologically important areas identified Baseline threat analysis complete. MOMs linked to PILUMP developed and training commenced KRA 2.2 Communities participating and engaged in confronting critical threats – improved livelihoods PILUMPs and conservancy processes have identified livelihoods opportunities but there has been limited progress in delivering these. KRA 2.3 Resources leveraged for sustainable management of important biological areas Good progress, though additional future support to address sustainability is still important. KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. KRA 3.1. River basin communities have improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation Significant progress on water supply in Namibia. More limited progress in Angola and limited progress in Botswana. Little progress on sanitation except in Botswana KRA 3.2 Resources leveraged for dissemination of safe drinking water & sanitation Good progress in Namibia and potential in Angola. Limited progress in Botswana KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the Context of Global Climate Change1 KRA 4.1 Conflicts over shared resources avoided and mitigated through regional mechanisms Some fairly good progress that includes: The harmonization of the fishing legislation/policy in all three countries; the development of a trans-boundary vi fisheries management plan for the three countries; intervention on devil’s claw trade between Angola and Namibia is preventing/mitigating escalation of tension between two countries; the PILUMPS conducted on both sides of the Angolan/Namibian border in the Kavango region have examined and planned for shared resource use between communities in the two countries; development of plans to establish a trans￾boundary wildlife corridor. Climate change focal point in OKACOM not yet established and climate change dialogue among OKACOM institutions still to commence. KRA 4.2 Tools, procedures and expertise in place to manage climate change crises Several initiatives underway such as conservation agriculture, and flood and fire management. KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals KRA 5.1. Investments increased in water supply and sanitation and biodiversity conservation PILUMPs developed but limited integration in district, basin and national plans. KRA 5.2. Development plans measure progress towards Millennium Development Goals 1, 6 and 7 SAREP is monitoring the progress of their activities but no information can be found on reporting against MDG targets KRA 5.3. More people informed about and have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment2 Some progress in Botswana where funding is available. HIV awareness raising is being integrated into other SAREP activities such as the PILUMPs and IWQM engagements with communities and other stakeholders. 1. Funding for this result area only became available during the last six months or less – this is about a year later than was originally scheduled 2. Funds that have been available for the HIV/AIDs interventions have been significantly less than originally anticipated. The funds that have been committed are only available for utilisation in Botswana. Up until the end of 2012 twelve of the twenty-one base period targets have been exceeded, one is on schedule and eight are behind schedule. The equivalent figures against the option period targets are nine exceeded, three on schedule and nine behind schedule. In many cases targets have been exceeded by a significant amount. Progress against the delivery of the base period targets must be considered to be excellent. For many of the indicators that are behind schedule the program has laid a significant foundation and there must be every chance that these indicators will be achieved or exceeded during the option period if not in the base period. In addition the following conclusions relating to cross-cutting issues are drawn, - If SAREP is to leave a legacy for communities on the ground it must be instrumental in delivering a flow of benefits to local communities in an equitable way. - Whilst SAREP has been addressing sustainability since its inception we feel that a sustainability strategy (or exit strategy) should be developed covering all SAREP activities. - Whilst acknowledging that much has already been achieved there have been many suggestions on how communication can be further enhanced. - SAREP support to OKACOM should continue and should focus on supporting the implementation of the NAPs. - There should be improved communication between USAID regional and bilateral programs in Southern Africa. - The Rundu office could become a key location for SAREP activities. - The Maun office is key to the coordination of the different themes of the SAREP project. We vii believe this importance would merit either the CoP or DCoP being based in the Maun office. - SAREP workplans should be circulated more widely and should include information on the geographic distribution of SAREP activities. In addition high level financial information should be included. - SAREP reports should be circulated more widely and should include information on the geographic distribution of SAREP activities, report against the workplans and include high level financial information. - Grants could be a key mechanism for achieving a sustainable flow of benefits for communities. We urge SAREP to allocate the remaining grant funds as soon as possible within the constraints posed by the impending decision on the extension into the option period. RECOMMENDATIONS Our key recommendation is that SAREP should be extended into the option period. We believe that this is essential if SAREP is to develop a flow of community benefits; which in turn is essential for the sustainability and legacy of SAREP. The extension into the option period should be finalized as soon as possible so as to avoid any interruptions in SAREPs activities. We acknowledge that SAREP has already commenced many actions to ensure the delivery of program results. We applaud this approach to adaptive management. The recommendations below and elsewhere in this report cover the most important areas where we feel action is required. We are fully aware that many of these actions have already commenced and include them here for completeness. Further details on these recommendations are given in the conclusions and recommendations sections of this report. Specific recommendations are made as follows, KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin Continue to support implementation of NAPs. Support implementation of OKACOMs institutional review. Support to implementation of plans to strengthen basin wide fora in the three countries. KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Implement the livelihood support plans. Ensure that any developments undertaken by SAREP are in line with the latest environmental regulations and procedures of the countries. Additional technical support to OKACOM and the country partners to address the need for further science-based information to support high-level decision-making in the basin. Place additional emphasis on ensuring that the public sector agencies that are responsible for maintaining the plans and agreements reached with SAREP support are capacitated. Compile a lessons learnt document for the insights gained under SAREP. Continue to work closely with and develop synergies with KAZA. KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation Engagement with key water stakeholders in Windhoek, Namibia needs to be improved further. Engagement with key water stakeholders in Luanda. Support to OKBMC. Support to WSS in the Caprivi. Document the two different models that are emerging in response to the flooding that local communities are subjected to in the Caprivi; two models are permanent and temporary re-location. Experience of flood management planning in the Caprivi to be shared with SAREP Activity Managers and extension facilitators elsewhere. viii Share SAREP WSS experience with key OKACOM structures. Share Botswana experience of school sanitation with other countries and as appropriate provide support. Extend further SAREPs engagement on water resource issues. KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the Context of Global Climate Change Concept note outlining climate-change related concepts. Conduct sector-specific study of climate change impacts in the basin. Conduct sector-specific vulnerability assessments with plans for developing adaptation option. Develop plan for how the proposal OKACOM climate change focal point would undertake a collaborative process. Strengthen sustainability of climate change forum through review of process using a professional external facilitator. Assessment of Flood Preparedness Early Warning. Assessment of governments’ integration of climate change in policy and practice. KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals The HIV/AIDS prevention & treatment section of the SAREP program should continue. The current SAREP HIV work plan needs to be shared more widely with key PEPFAR partners. SAREP HIV annual work plan should define areas of operation; key partnerships with USG funded and local partners, areas of communication intervention, due dates and projected processes and/or outputs and the geographic locations. Delivering a sustainable flow of benefits Provide water & enabling support for the mobilization of resources for electricity services to Chief Myuni & his community members who have moved off the floodplain. Provide water services to people who have moved because of wildlife. Provide Conservation Agriculture support to farmers in priority wildlife areas – like areas in Angola & Chief Myuni’s area in Caprivi. Provide at least two sets of fenced areas at rivers where people collect water and cattle are taken to drink to protect them from crocodiles. These areas must be separate. The southern Angolan villages have had particular problems with crocodiles, but so have Caprivi. Investigate a community-based tourism model that does not rely solely on privately operated/owned concession lodges. Sustainability Sharing of implementation experience between the NGOs working on the SAREP program. Develop sustainability (or exit) strategy for SAREP. Communication Internal communication. Review current process and development and implement new strategy. External communication. Review current process and development and implement new strategy. Alignment with OKACOM SAREP should share information with SADC FANR. Creating links between high level structures and activities on the ground Continue to Assist OKACOM with the development of sound, science-based information for informing key decisions on the management of the basin. Assist OKACOM to develop an influencing strategy for high-level decision-makers after due consultation with senior officials to address their specific challenges in obtaining the necessary attention of the key decision-makers. Identify key roles required of middle-level public servants to maintain the sustainability of initiatives started by SAREP & design a training/capacity building & mentorship program to develop the requisite skills & knowledge. Through regular community-level meetings, with its partner community structures, SAREP should initiate a process for identifying major issues arising within communities on the ground that should be distilled & communicated to high-level decision-makers and also pass information from the high-level structures to the communities. ix Interaction between USAID regional and bilateral programs Improve communication between SAREP and bilateral programs in Angola, Botswana and Namibia. SAREP management, planning and reporting procedures Establish Rundu office as a key location for SAREP activities. Investigate basing the CoP or DCoP in the Maun office. Enhancements to workplan: distribution, geographic distribution of activities, high level financial information. Reporting enhancements: distribution, geographic distribution of activities, reporting against workplan, high level financial information. 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this assignment is to conduct a performance evaluation of the Southern Africa Regional Environment Program. Specific objectives include: • use evidence to document the degree to which USAID-funded environmental project interventions through Chemonics Inc. worked, or did not work; • Identify best practices, lessons learned, and areas of improvement; and • Provide recommendations to inform USAID’s follow-on interventions toward improved management of the Okavango river basin, with emphasis on institutional strengthening, biodiversity conservation, water and sanitation, and climate change adaptability, and assess what will be required to achieve existing strategic goals and results. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation addressed the following key evaluation questions under three themes related to the project’s results, management, and promising practices: Results • To what extent is the SAREP Project likely to be successful in achieving results toward its stated objectives? • What have been the key drivers of and limitations on performance to date? • To what extent has the project made progress towards improving the effectiveness and sustainability of OKACOM and related organizations that affect river basin management? Management • To what extent has the management structure as implemented supported, or hindered, performance? Promising Practices • Based on the findings and analysis of the preceding questions, what are the key strategic, programmatic, technical, and managerial features of the project that should be taken into account when implementing new transboundary environmental management initiatives in the region? The Statement of Work for the evaluation is included as Annex I. 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND SAREP’s objective, as stipulated in the Chemonics Statement of Work, is to support the initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to integrate improved water and sanitation services with strategies that address threats to ecosystem services and biodiversity within priority shared river basins and to strengthen regional capacity to adapt and respond to effects of climate change. The SAREP project builds on previous USAID support through the Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). SAREP also strengthens regional capacity to adapt and respond to the effects of climate change and extends the reach of USAID programs addressing HIV/AIDS. SAREP is a five year program that commenced in June 2010. The SAREP contract was awarded to a consortium led by Chemonics International and including Bergstan and the University of Florida. This assignment is a mid-term review of the SAREP and as such it will make recommendations that can be implemented during the remainder of the project. SAREP is coordinated primarily by the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) and its technical advisory committee, the Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC). Towards the end of the first year of the program a joint steering committee for SAREP was established through OKASec. The steering committee allowed the countries to have a level of supervision in the implementation processes in their respective parts of the basin and in turn meant that the program was run in close coordination with the river basin organization to maximize the impact of its activities. SAREP focuses primarily on the trans-boundary Okavango River Basin (ORB) and the Caprivi section of the Zambezi River Basin in Namibia. The Okavango River Basin, shared by Angola, Botswana, and Namibia, encompasses one of the world’s largest inland wetland ecosystems. It covers an area of about 413,550 km2 with a human population of about 960,000 (about 882,000 in the ORB and about 80,000 in the Caprivi region). Activities have expanded to the neighboring Linyanti-Kwando sub-basin and associated eco-systems through the Caprivi biodiversity work and the support to KAZA. This sub-basin shares a landscape with, and interacts ecologically with the Okavango River basin. Activities there will build upon existing relationships and progress in the Angola-Namibia-Botswana frontier zones. The SAREP overall strategy rests on the primacy of benefits sharing, stakeholder participation, and aid effectiveness, as well as on the following general principles: 1. The Okavango Basin and regional counterparts in SADC — particularly OKACOM — are the “owners” of SAREP. Their leadership and commitment to the program are vital for its success and are an implementation priority. 2. SAREP activities must, in every case, strengthen the “shared resource, shared benefit” perspective among all stakeholders, regardless of culture or gender barriers. As a corollary, SAREP will demonstrate that stakeholders have more to gain from collaboration than from individual/independent actions. 3. International cooperating partners must act in concert on health and environmental goals in the targeted river basins. Leveraging each other’s resources, speaking with a single voice on consensus-conflict mitigation, and keeping aid effectiveness will be at the forefront of funding priorities. 4. SAREP activities will reflect a regional platform. They will transcend national boundaries, offer economies of scale to Southern Africa as a whole, and add value to bilateral programs. 3 SAREP’s approach balances three key pillars: biodiversity, water supply and sanitation, and livelihoods. The approach is based on the premise that poverty and a lack of education are linked and generally seen to be indirect causes of limited livelihood strategies in marginalized rural communities. This leads to an over-reliance on and over-harvesting of natural resources to meet basic human needs such as food and shelter, which together with poor health and a lack of access to clean potable water, result in pollution of the environment, a reduction in biodiversity, and degradation of ecosystems. SAREP Results Framework SADC Water Vision: Equitable and sustainable use of water for social and environmental justice, regional integration, and economic benefit for present and future generations SAREP Strategic Objective: Strong regional and local capacity for integrated Okavango River Basin management and climate change adaption leading to increased biodiversity conservation and improved overall welfare of river basin communities KRA 1. Cooperative management of targeted shared river basins improved KRA 1.1 Science based system(s) support regional planning and water resource allocation KRA 1.2 More effective services provided by institutions for basin-scale planning, biodiversity conservation, and water supply and sanitation KRA 2. Biodiversity and ecosystem services monitored and protected KRA 2.1 Threats to biologically important areas identified, monitored, and addressed KRA 2.2 Communities participating and engaged in confronting critical threats to biodiversity while improving their welfare KRA 2.3 Resources leveraged for sustainable management and conservation of important biologically diverse areas KRA 3. Access to safe water supply and sanitation increased KRA 3.1 River basin communities have improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation through appropriate planning building, financing, and operation of infrastructure KRA 3.2 Resources leveraged for dissemination and replication of safe drinking water and sanitation KRA 4. Targeted river basins resources managed in the Context of Global Climate Change (GCC) KRA 4.1 Conflicts over shared resources avoided and mitigated through regional collaboration mechanisms KRA 4.2 Tools, procedures, and expertise in place to manage climate-caused crises such as floods, droughts, and fires KRA 5 Regional, national, and local development planning capacities around river basins (for land and water use, biodiversity conservation) strengthened KRA 5.1 Investments increased in water supply and sanitation and biodiversity conservation KRA 5.2 Development plans measure progress toward Millennium Development Goals numbers 1, 6, and 7 KRA 5.3 More people informed about and have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment Key Result Areas (KRA) As shown in the Results Framework, the Program’s overall strategic objective is to support “strong regional and local capacity for integrated Okavango River Basin management and climate change adaptation leading to increased biodiversity conservation by, and improved overall welfare of, river basin communities.” Project key result areas flowing from this objective include: • Improved cooperation and management of shared river basins; • Biodiversity and ecosystem services monitored and protected; • Access to safe water supply and sanitation; • River basins managed in the context of global climate change; • Regional, national, and local development planning capacities around river basins (for land and water use, biodiversity conservation) strengthened. 4 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODS The detailed activities carried out during the assignment are described in the Annex II. There are a few points we would like to emphasize and add as described below. Development of evaluation matrix and questionnaires to guide consultation with stakeholders Based on the evaluation questions, the discussions at the kick-off meeting and meetings with the SAREP Chief of Party and his deputy during the inception phase, the evaluation team developed evaluation matrices and a series of questionnaires to guide the consultation with stakeholders. Four evaluation matrices have been developed to address the evaluation questions. The evaluation matrices respectively cover the following aspects of the evaluation, • Progress towards results • Management aspects • Sustainability • Lessons learnt and recommendations. Each evaluation matrix identifies evaluation sub-questions under a number of headings. The evaluation matrices also identify potential sources of evidence which can be used to address the evaluation sub-questions. The potential sources of evidence are, • Documents • High level decision makers including USAID and other co-operating partners, OKACOM (Commissioners, OBSC members, Secretariat), regional and local government • The SAREP management and technical team • Project implementers – the NGOs implementing the projects on the ground • Communities – the primary beneficiaries of the project • Field observations For each evaluation sub-question we have identified the primary source of evidence (marked in red) and the secondary sources of evidence (marked in yellow). We have then tried to identify the specific information we would seek to acquire from each source of evidence under each evaluation sub￾question. The evaluation matrices are attached in the Annex II. Based on the evaluation matrices we have prepared questionnaires for high level decision makers, the SAREP management and technical staff, project implementers and communities. These are attached in the Annex III. It is important to note that the evaluation matrices in general and the questionnaires specifically were used to guide the consultation with stakeholders. Because of time and other constraints it was not be possible to fully cover all questions for each stakeholder. This was not the desired objective and it was 5 not the objective to use the questionnaires in any form of statistical analysis. A full list of stakeholders consulted is included in Annex IV. This approach ensured a common approach to stakeholder consultation for each team member and for each stakeholder. The questions are open ended. Their objective is to collect a consistent and basic set of information. They also led to more detailed discussion with each stakeholder concerning their involvement with and views on SAREP. Group consultation Most of the consultations were face to face between members of the evaluation team and an individual stakeholder. In addition group discussions were held as follows, • The kick-off meeting • Interaction with staff in the SAREP Maun office • Interaction with communities • The presentation of the evaluation findings Analysis of results of consultations The consultation phase was extensive and involved interaction with a large number of stakeholders. Each interaction was documented within the framework of the evaluation matrices to enable content analysis of responses to the structured questionnaires that have been prepared. This allowed the analysis of the stakeholder consultations to be outcomes based and to be measured against targets. The documented results of the consultations were reviewed prior to and during the analysis phase. On the ground observations Two members of the evaluation team travelled extensively to SAREP offices in Gaborone, Maun and Rundu, and throughout the basin in Botswana and Namibia. A visit was also made to Windhoek, Namibia and Luanda, Angola. This travelling allowed the team to make on the ground observations which are invaluable for understanding the context of the SAREP project. Annex VII includes some photographs taken during the field mission. Documentation review The team undertook a comprehensive review of documentation produced in connection with activities associated with SAREP. A list of documents reviewed is included in Annex IV. Triangulation principle The various evaluation methods utilised, as outlined above, allowed triangulation whereby two or more methods are used to check and confirm a finding or observation. Such an approach is essential for an evaluation such as this to be robust. Triangulation also allowed the identification of the most important findings since these are the ones that are repeated and confirmed by the different evaluation methods. Testing of findings During the analysis phase the review team developed their findings. These findings were confirmed through further interaction with stakeholders. This was mainly done through the presentation of the evaluation findings and comments received on the draft evaluation report. This interaction was also used to collect any additional information required; this information was incorporated into the final evaluation report. LIMITATION OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 6 Time constraints We did not get the chance to interview everyone that we would have liked to have interviewed or have quite as long with certain groups as we would have wanted. In addition time constraints only allowed us to visit a limited number of the communities with whom SAREP is working and in many instances to spend a limited time with these communities. It was not possible to visit the basin and communities in Angola. Access to Angola The time constraints of the assignment have led to real challenges in obtaining visa’s for Angola. Because of this it was not possible to visit project sites in Angola whilst the evaluation team was travelling through the basin. In an attempt to compensate for this we brought 13 members from three Angolan communities to an interactive session held close to Rundu, Namibia; this included three tribal chiefs. The outcome of this session is incorporated into our findings. In addition these constraints meant it was not possible to travel to Luanda to meet Angolan government representatives before the preparation of the draft evaluation report and the presentation to USAID of our findings. A four day visit was made to Luanda immediately following the USAID presentation and the findings of this mission are included in the final evaluation report. The visit was used to test our findings. A perception was clearly expressed to us during the mission to Luanda that Angola had benefitted less from SAREP than the other two countries. Whilst we have found nothing to substantiate this perception it is essential that it is addressed since it could undermine the impact and legacy of SAREP. This matter is addressed further under sections relating to communications later in this report. Difficulty in obtaining appointments with key stakeholders As has been indicated above the evaluation was carried out under considerable and fully understood time constraints. An additional challenge this presented was to obtaining appointments especially with key people. Specifically it did not prove possible to meet with one of the Botswana OKACOM Commissioners during our first visit to Gaborone; a second visit was arranged to meet with a Botswana Commissioner. Similarly our visit to Windhoek had to be extended by one day in order to meet with a Namibian OKACOM Commissioner; this meeting was arranged for us by the Head of USAID in Namibia. Finally, it was not possible to meet with the Angola Commissioner during the visit to Luanda, however, we did meet with two Angola OBSC members. Funding allocations In our experience most evaluations include a review of financing, funding flows and expenditure in order to assess aspects such as value for money. We note that the scope of work for this evaluation does not include this aspect so these matters have not been reviewed. However as a basis for this performance assessment it is useful to note the following, Programmatic area Estimated share of total funding from RFP Actual breakdown of funding to date Biodiversity 45% 58% Water supply and sanitation 40% 29% Climate change 10%1 12.6%2 HIV / AIDS 5%1 <1% 1. Funding estimated to begin in year 2 2. Funding only became available during the last six months or less We return to the matter of funding for the climate change and HIV /AIDS programmatic areas elsewhere in this report. 7 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In this section we summarize our findings and then draw conclusions. The detailed findings for each result area are included as Annex VIII. For each result area we present a dashboard summary of progress against what could reasonably have been expected to have been achieved at this stage of program implementation, and then our conclusions. We then present a dashboard summary of progress against targets followed by conclusions. Finally we present some conclusions for cross-cutting issues. Result areas KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin Dashboard Summary KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin KRA 1.1 Science-based systems support regional planning. SAREP should continue to work closely with and develop synergies with KAZA. KAZA enjoys a very high level of authority & autonomy. The commitment by high level officials in Angola to KAZA has already served to put a break on planned large￾scale agricultural developments in the upper basin. SAREP should explore how this commitment can advance the work of OKACOM. Activity Progress Comment 1.1.1 Design and put into operation decision support model NAPs completed in Angola, Botswana and Namibia Logistical support for workshops and technical assistance provided by SAREP. 1.1.2. Develop supporting capacity for effective OKACOM decision-making DSS based on the LUCIS framework developed and implementation commenced DSS approved for implementation by OKACOM and training provided to OBSC related structures in Botswana and Namibia KRA 1.2 More effective services provided by institutions 1.2.1 Disseminate IWRM decision support model into localities Support to OKACOM task forces. Contributed to institutional assessment. Support to communications. Discussions concerning other support Valuable support has been provided to facilitate meetings and support travel, and concerning the preparation and dissemination of information on the work of OKACOM. Discussion concerning capacity building support have started but there has been limited implementation progress. 1.2.2 Strengthen capacity of OKACOM and other river basins management authorities Support to OKBMC and numerous government departments. Discussion concerning support but limited progress on implementation. Valuable support provided to OKBMC and government departments. Meetings have been held with basin fora and strategies developed. Exchange visit from Angola to Caprivi indicates the start of implementation Key: Green – on target, Yellow – significant progress, Red – Limited progress This result area concerns the strengthening of the various OKACOM structures and other basin management institutions in the three riparian states to improve management of the Okavango basin. In many respects it is the most important aspect of SAREP since improved and basin wide management is essential to the sustainability of the basin. We have been advised by at least one stakeholder that the greatest threat to the basin is the failure of OKACOM to fulfill its mandate. It must be noted however that not all activities relating to improved management fall under this result area. In fact all of the SAREP result areas contribute to improved management; these aspects are reported under the relevant result area below. 9 KRA1 basically comprises two separate but related sets of activities; each of these has two sub￾activities. The first set of activities relates to the establishment of a basin wide planning framework and of a system to support this framework, whilst the second set of activities concerns the building of the capacity of the various OKACOM structures and other basin management structures to implement the basin wide planning framework. When SAREP commenced the TDA was being finalized and the process of preparing the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for its implementation had started. The SAP is a guidance document for the three countries. Implementation of SAP measures is through the National Action Plans (NAPs) which underpin the SAP and are part of the national planning procedures. The NAPs address both regional and national priorities and draw upon the findings of the TDA and relevant national studies and projects. Potentially the single most important intervention that has been made by SAREP has been the support to the finalization of the NAPs in the three countries. Specifically, SAREP provided logistical and facilitating support to NAP stakeholder workshops and also technical assistance to help with the drafting of the NAPs. The significance of finalizing the NAPs cannot be under estimated since they are the primary planning documents concerning the development and management of the basin. SAREP went through a process of prioritizing NAP activities for SAREP implementation in each of the three countries and SAREP workplans were adjusted to reflect these priorities. Similarly all future interventions by SAREP should be undertaken within the context of the NAPs; it is recommended that SAREP should continue to directly support the implementation of the NAPs in the three countries. The TDA recommends the development of a DSS for the basin as a common planning framework. This is another area where SAREP has made a significant contribution. Based on the identification of biodiversity threats and hotspots, and more recently extended to include water use related information, a decision support system has been developed based on the LUCIS GIS platform. The DSS has been presented to OKACOM and its task teams on more than one occasion and is now approved for implementation. Training in the use and operation of the DSS has been provided to more than 30 technicians and policy level OKACOM related decision makers in Botswana and Namibia and a training course for Angola is planned. Whilst ongoing support is required for the further development of the DSS, and further training and mentorship will be required, a solid basis for decision making in the basin has been laid. The second major activity under this result area relates to the development of capacity in the various OKACOM structures and other basin management institutions. In respect of this activity SAREP has made less, but significant progress. For the majority of the period since the commencement of SAREP OKACOM was in a period of transition following the ending of the SIDA Phase I institutional support program and the approval and commencement of the second phase. The OKAsec experienced an operational funding crisis and some staff were let go. SAREP stepped in to facilitate meetings and travel to keep the institutional process going. Support has also been provided for the preparation of promotional material and other forms of communication, and visits by various OKACOM experts. The support provided by SAREP is both highly appreciated and beneficial to developing the capacity of those involved in the management of the basin. An OKACOM institutional functional analysis, funded by SIDA, has been undertaken and reported in early 2012. This analysis proposes an action plan for the institutional strengthening of OKACOM; this calls for additional technical staff in OKAsec and (additional) permanent 10 technical committees. OKACOM has requested support from SAREP for the implementation of this action plan and SAREP has agreed to provide this support when the SIDA funding commences and OKACOM has mobilized the additional staff required. It is recommended that this activity forms the core of SAREPs support to capacity development in OKACOM going forward. In terms of other basin management institutions SAREP has met with basin wide fora in the three countries and support plans have been developed to strengthen these fora. OKAsec has confirmed that it wishes to work with all legitimate basin fora; this can be taken as an indication that SAREP should support these fora and this has been agreed by SAREP. It is recommended that SAREP should support the implementation plans that have been developed but it is important that this process is driven by OKAsec to ensure that sustainability is not compromised. This support by SAREP has already commenced with a visit from basin forum members from Angola to the Caprivi. KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Dashboard Summary KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services SAREP has developed, adapted and applied sound environmental instruments to assist in identifying biodiversity hotspots, threats to these, the management and monitoring of these. The element that now requires attention is the implementation of livelihood support activities that are clearly linked to the sustainable management of the natural resource base including the biodiversity that, in effect, comprise the local communities’ natural capital. KRA 2.1 Threats to biologically important areas identified Activity Progress Comment 2.1.1. Baseline threat analysis. Completed for the Okavango Delta, using the review of the Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) and the SEA (a good quality report) and working with the Tawana Land Board (TLB) across Ngamiland. The work done on the SEA indicated that the current water utilization in the basin was much closer to the sustainability threshold for off￾take than had been previously assumed. This has considerable implications for biodiversity management across the basin area. A Rapid Ecosystems Health Assessment was completed by Ecosurv in December 2011. It covered the basin as a whole as well as most areas across the Kavango Zambezi Trans-frontier Conservation Area (KAZA) landscape over the 5 countries. In Angola literature reviews and workshops on the biodiversity ‘hotspots’ have been conducted. An SEA for the whole basin is due to start towards the middle of 2013. Major threats include the proliferation of large-scale crop production irrigation schemes, mining, poaching of fish, the impact of exotic species as well as SEA and the National Action Plans (NAPs) have been completed. Generally good progress has been made and the major threats are now recognized. Strategies to address the threats are now required and are included in local level planning. The study of potential benefits per sector for opportunities within the basin by the World Bank will be important in informing sound decision-making in the basin as to relative benefits across the development sectors. This together with the SEA, will allow authorities to look at optimum use within sustainable Mobilizing the political will to deal with the threats is likely to be a major ‘high level’ challenge to the program. SAREP is not addressing the Kariba Weed (Salvinia Molesta) challenge in the delta. This formed a part of the Biokavango Project. 11 poverty itself. 2.1.2. Conduct field studies and monitoring programs. Trans-boundary fisheries study is helping to provide information for the authorities involved. This is particularly helping Namibia & Botswana. A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument for identifying & assessing biodiversity ‘hotspots’ has been introduced in Kavango with the Biodiversity Task Group of the OKBMC. The Land Use Conflict Identification System for Evaluating Landscape Management Decisions (LUCIS) using a GIS platform & a multi-disciplinary approach has been effectively introduced in Ngamiland in Botswana and has been enthusiastically embraced by the Tawana Land Board and in Kavango with the OKBMC Biodiversity Task Team. This has been used to identify (confirm) the biodiversity ‘hotspots’ & is being used to monitor these hotspots. The introduction of the LUCIS model has been well received & the training provided has been of benefit. It has served to confirm the biodiversity ‘hot spots’. What has been particularly appreciated in Namibia (OKBMC) is the fact that the results (of the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument) are quantifiable and that new criteria that are weighted can be added. An aerial survey of the river (photographic) could be useful though costly and should perhaps be undertaken every second year. The public sector entities that will own & use these reports in the future must be identified & prepared for the role. 2.1.3. Implement MOMS￾based CBNRM system Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS), often referred to as “event books monitoring”, has largely integrated into the PILUMPS follow-up and the conservancy planning processes in Namibia. In Botswana, it has been accepted by the Dept. of Wildlife & is used as a PILUMPS follow￾up mechanism. It has not yet been employed in Angola, where efforts have concentrated on the development of Conservation Agriculture needs. It is anticipated that MOMS will be employed at a later stage in Angola. CBNRM plans have been developed for communities in all three countries through the PILUMP process and the conservancies and the SAREP target of 32 plans has been exceeded. A number of new conservancies are currently being planned. MOMS, or ‘event books’ is a useful tool to track human-wildlife contact and conflict. SAREP is making good use of this to assess compensation for households suffering damage as a result of wildlife. The progress with this is particularly noticeable in the Caprivi area, where training of conservancy (community) game guards to assess levels of damage was witnessed. Plans to limit human-wildlife conflict are now being developed. It is an important consideration to determine who will receive these reports within the public sector in the future? This must be determined now, and the capacity created within a public institution, if this element is to prove sustainable. 2.1.4. Undertake ecological monitoring in remote biodiversity hotspots Hotspots in Namibian areas of the basin have been identified and are being monitored using the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument. Monitoring activities under a protocol with the concessionaires in the Okavango Delta have been established, through which their tourist guides will collect data. In Angola, Rapid Environmental Assessments (REA) are being undertaken rather than relying on community-based approaches. This is in response to the dearth of information The monitoring protocol with the Okavango Delta concessionaires represents a good example of a public￾private sector partnership. It will contribute to sustainability, as long as the public sector is capacitated to continue in the partnership once SAREP has closed. 12 and the community-based approach will follow later. The next REAs are planned for April and November. 2.1.5. Develop GIS-based data management systems to link with MOMS This has been achieved, see discussion above. SAREP has engaged in MOMS training, but it must ensure that the government authorities are fully prepared to manage and use the system and the information flowing from it in the future. KRA 2.2 Communities participating and engaged in confronting critical threats – improved livelihoods 2.2.1. Improve welfare of communities in threatened areas. Through the PILUMPS & conservancy processes, livelihoods opportunities have been identified and plans developed for a number of communities in threatened areas. These include: Lake Ngami, Gumare, Tubu, Shakawe, the conservancies in Caprivi and The Residents Association (KweSan) in the Bwabwata National Park. Communities have been enthusiastic participants and are anxious to turn the plans into tangible reality. The program now needs to concentrate upon implementing the livelihood activities as a matter of urgency. This should be a priority for the option period of SAREP. However, the livelihoods initiatives need careful screening & will require on-going mentorship & support. It cannot be assumed that, because the plans have been completed, the task has been completed. On-going mentorship will be required. This is a priority. No initiatives should be started that do not have a high chance of being sustainable. 2.2.2. Prepare SAREP environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP) Completed at start of program, it satisfies the USAID and Chemonics screening requirements but does not necessarily satisfy the requirements of the governments in the basin, with regard to EIAs for example. The EMMP requires that installations are in line with national regulatory requirements, but changes in the EIA requirements in Namibia have not been factored into the EMMP and this is causing NamWater some concern. They are keen to work with SAREP, but are obliged to follow national environmental and water guidelines and procedures and cannot short-circuit these (Pers.com). 2.2.3. Support drive/process to formalize land and NRs receiving PA status The SEA has created the framework for improving the conservation status of many areas. A management plan for Lake Ngami is being finalized as part of the process to have it declared as a Bird Sanctuary. The management plan will also cover fisheries. Fisheries protection areas are also being designated, though these are somewhat informal agreements at this stage. SAREP is also working with the Namibian Environment and Tourism authorities to develop a management plan to support the process towards the establishment of a Ramsar site in Bwabwata National Park in Caprivi. Fairly good progress. The support given to KAZA areas within the broader basin should help in more than meeting the target of 4 million hectares under improved natural resources management. KAZA covers 5 countries (Zambia & Zimbabwe in addition to the OKACOM partners) and an area of 287,132 km². KRA 2.3 Resources leveraged for sustainable management of important biological areas 2.3.1. Leverage resources to maximize program impact and sustainability Support for the formulation of a proposal for a UNDP/GEF project on ‘Mainstreaming SLM in rangeland areas of Ngamiland district productive landscapes for improved livelihoods’ has resulted in an initiative of more than Good progress, though additional future support to address sustainability is still important. 13 US$3 million. Assistance to KAZA is also leveraging additional funding into the area. Key: Green – on target, Yellow – significant progress, Red – Limited progress SAREP has made good progress in addressing the biodiversity targets of the program. It is worth noting that there are considerable challenges associated with the large area of operation across three countries with different natural and socio-economic conditions and regulatory environments. With this in mind, the progress made on the Key Result Area 2 is commendable. Specifically, SAREP has been instrumental in generating key high-level plans like the SEA and the NAPs. SAREP has also assisted local communities to develop and in some cases update local level plans with zoning guidelines for different types of activities. The major threats to the basin have been identified and what remains for SAREP is to provide technical support for efforts to address the threats and challenges. The technical information and support for high￾level decision-making around development plans in the basin is likely to feature prominently in these. This area of work will entail an ever-closer working relationship with OKACOM. Whilst SAREPs contribution to high level planning is extremely important it is also important that these plans lead to a direct impact on the ground. For example, the biodiversity survey in Angola has provided the fisheries institute in Luanda with essential and previously unavailable information. However, for this to lead to improved management, a monitoring program needs to be developed and based on this a management plan for the fishery resources of the basin. In order to maximize impact, further SAREP support in these areas is required. The partnership that is being developed with the private sector concession holders in the Okavango Delta to collect data for monitoring purposes is a very positive step and could evolve into a ‘best practice’. This should be carefully documented. Every effort should be made to address the concessionaires’ reliability of supply and quality control concerns that are currently inhibiting them from purchasing many food inputs from local community sources. The very limited benefits that local communities enjoy from the concessions, is of concern. Not only is Botswana to date the main beneficiary of the waters of the Okavango, most of the benefits accrue to private sector concession holders with very little direct benefit to local community members other than the not inconsiderable opportunity of jobs. Besides the exploration of further developing partnerships between local communities and the privately operated lodges throughout the basin, consideration should be given to the development of alternative, community-based approaches to tourism. This will require the formulation of an arrangement with a support agency that will need to provide on-going mentorship and logistical support to community-based operations over a considerable period of time. It is recommended that such an approach be explored in partnership with the Botswana Tourism Board. The major concern of the review team is the link between the livelihoods component and the sustainable management of the natural resource base. There are two specific concerns in this regard. While the Mid-Term Evaluation Team recognizes the importance of providing tangible benefits to local people, the link between the benefits and the integrity of the natural resource base must be constantly reinforced in local people’s minds. Contacts during the field mission undertaken by the Mid-Term Evaluation team indicated that the ‘connection’ referred to was strong in the minds of local community committee members, but there was doubt about whether many local community members shared this understanding. This connection will require constant reinforcement and benefits, in the form of jobs and income, and will need to be regularly related to the sustainable maintenance of the natural resource base. 14 The second concern revolves around sustainability and the need for on-going mentorship for the livelihoods activities established in the communities. Experience in the region has indicated that a considerable period of on-going mentorship for community-established livelihood activities like tourism, craft, commercial fisheries etc. Several of the community conservancies in Caprivi have been in operation for up to a decade and still require support. The nature of the support usually changes over time, but as situations evolve, increasing complexity challenges local communities who require on-going support. SAREP needs to address this issue, together with its implementing partners and the different tiers of government. Craft production holds considerable opportunity. The craft production effort at Mashi Crafts is proving successful. It not only provides income opportunities for 325 producers, but 296 of these are women who obtain cash income that they use for school fees and basic household needs. This is an excellent example of the optimal support that SAREP can offer. Besides providing sustainable livelihoods and strengthening local economic practice, the investment in children's education also reduces the risk of HIV and supports progress towards MDGs 1,2,3 and 6. The success of this group appears to be related to the energy of the group and support team, their marketing nous and their strategic location. They carefully related the harvesting of their natural raw materials to the maintenance of the integrity of the natural resource base. In contrast, the craft centre at Gumare appears pretty marginal. They produce a very limited range of goods that are not properly market-related and for which they have limited marketing strategies. Success in the craft sector is closely related to marketing, quality and producing for a market, rather than producing in the hope of finding a market. Many groups will need training in all elements of the sector, if they are to succeed Further additional support to OKACOM’s specialist groups should be considered. This is likely to place fairly modest demands on the SAREP budget, but could include specific support for the monitoring activities of the biodiversity working group of the OKBMC. SAREP should concentrate considerable effort on preparing government and NGOs to take over the community-support initiatives started under biodiversity/livelihood area of work. SAREP needs to insure that any community development activities that its supports are in line with the most recent environmental regulations (like EIAs) of the country within which they occur. This is very important as regulations do evolve and change across the three countries. Where the regulatory environment has gaps, SAREP should identify these and provide assistance to address the gaps. Conservation Farming is in demand by many local communities and is, on the face of it, a very sound food security and climate resilient approach that has been well tested in the sub￾continent and elsewhere. It can also contribute meaningfully to livelihoods and allow the marketing of excess produce. However, the current difficult climatic conditions in Botswana have impacted upon the demonstration conservation farming initiatives and the demonstration farm in Shakawe was not impressive. Most of the farmers in the area are struggling with the conditions, so this is not a criticism of the demonstration farm itself and it is probably showing better results than the conventional farming approaches. However, as a demonstration farm it is currently not succeeding and the approach should be carefully assessed. It is the review team’s opinion that Conservation Farming is likely to require two to three growing and harvesting seasons to adequately generate demonstrable benefits from the approach. As a general principle, it is recommended that SAREP continue with the approach that supports multiple livelihoods strategies. This reduces risks and builds climate change resilience and can spread the burden on the natural resource base so that no specific resources are impacted 15 upon beyond their ability to remain sustainable. It is also recommended that a focal point be appointed by area of intervention to ensure the integration of the individual approaches into a coherent development in line with the planning. KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation Dashboard Summary KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation SAREP has made good progress in the Kavango region of Namibia with the coordination of water sector activities, the design of water schemes and the construction of one scheme. Further work is needed on the coordination of activities with DWSSC and NamWater in Windhoek. In Angola a condition assessment of 24 schemes has been completed and rehabilitation plans are being developed. One ‘quick win’ project was identified which has re-instated the water supply to 15,000 people. Engagement of the water sector in Botswana has recently commenced. For sanitation CLTS work has commenced in Botswana and will be shortly expanded to Angola and Namibia. Improvement in school sanitation has been achieved through two pilot projects in Botswana. The SAREP engagements should mobilize government funding in Namibia and Angola, and possibly in Botswana. Funds from the Denner Foundation should also be mobilized in Namibia. KRA 3.1. River basin communities have improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation Activity Progress Comment 3.1.1. Identify institutional responsibility, and strengthen capacity for WSS delivery Angola General advice being prepared for provincial water services on how water services delivery can be improved Training to do condition assessment and develop rehabilitation plan for other schemes Condition assessment database Training needs assessment planned for staff at Menongue treatment works Botswana ‘Adopt a school’ collaboration agreement with the Ngamiland Dept of Education Collaboration with water sector partners in Botswana has recently commenced Namibia Good collaboration established with DWSSC, NamWater and other key stakeholders in Rundu area – regional WATSAN established Relationships are being established with DWSSC and NamWater in Windhoek Support provided to OKBMC and its task teams Assistance for Rundu and elsewhere to develop a IWQM plan Good progress in the Kavango region of Namibia but more needs to be done with partners in Windhoek. Good foundation established in Angola but limited progress to date. Engagement with key water sector stakeholders has only just started in Botswana. 3.1.2. Water demand and supply assessment and finalize target list of communities Angola Condition assessment in 24 areas Botswana Plans to support condition assessment Namibia Working will NamWater on the design of schemes for six communities in the Kavango region – total of 22,000 people covered. Assisting the Denner Foundation with Excellent progress in Namibia through association with NamWater and to a lesser extent the Denner Foundation. Steady progress in Angola through the condition assessment. Little progress in Botswana as engagement with key water sector stakeholders has only just commenced. 16 the design of a scheme in one community and the rehabilitation of a scheme in another community – total of 14,000 people covered 3.1.3. Design and implement safe drinking water projects in pilot communities Angola Developing rehabilitation plan for 24 schemes Scheme rehabilitated at Calundo providing water to 15,000 people. Other quick wins to be implemented – to supply water to approximately 5,000 people Botswana Possibility of supporting some quick win rehabilitation projects after the completion of the condition assessment. Mababe water supply project Namibia Karutci scheme. Assisted with design and construction. Provision of materials. Scheme should be operational very shortly. Kayengona scheme. Assisted with design of river off-take. Construction by NamWater should start shortly Denner Foundation. On hold but should start again later this year. Will provide pump for one community and assist in another community. Significant progress in Namibia through the design and implementation of the Karutci scheme and the work with NamWater on the Kayengona scheme. Development of rehabilitation plans for the 24 condition assessment schemes has commenced in Angola and one quick win has re-instated the water supply for 15,000 people. Little progress in Botswana as engagement with key water sector stakeholders has only just commenced 3.1.4. Design and begin implementation of water supply and sanitation projects CLTS coordinators to be appointed PACSE training provided in all areas where SAREP is working. Angola Identification of trainers and trainees for CLTS commenced. Exchange visit to Botswana planned Botswana CLTS motivation workshop CLTS training workshop for communities in the Shakawe area. CLTS action plan developed for the Shakawe area. Involvement of SMART centre from Malawi for latrine building training CLTS to be extended to the Gumare area Rehabilitation of sanitation facilities at two schools Namibia Sanitation sensitization has commenced CLTS exchange visit to Botswana planned. CLTS underway in Botswana and commencing in Angola and Namibia. Improvement in school sanitation has been achieved through two pilot projects in Botswana. KRA 3.2 Resources leveraged for dissemination of safe drinking water & sanitation 3.2.1 Leverage resources to maximize program impact and sustainability Angola Angola has funds to rehabilitate 24 schemes NamWater funds should be mobilized through SAREP assistance to the design and prioritization of projects. Potential to 17 Botswana Potential to leverage resources for school sanitation under the ‘Adopt a school’ agreement Namibia SAREP have assisted NamWater to prioritise schemes which will mobilize resources. Denner Foundation. Once the work with the Denner Foundation is completed SAREP will have mobilized funds of about 2.5 M N$ mobilize funds from the Denner Foundation in Namibia. Support provided through the condition assessment and rehabilitation planning in Angola should mobilize government funds. Potential to mobilize funding through the ‘Adopt a school’ program in Botswana. Key: Green – on target, Yellow – significant progress, Red – Limited progress SAREP is a regional / transboundary program that is working in three countries – Angola, Botswana and Namibia. The primary implementing partners for SAREP are the various institutional structures of the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission – OKACOM. Normally the primary consideration for transboundary river commissions such as OKACOM are water resources rather than access to safe drinking water and sanitation – this matter is returned to later. Given this situation the achievements that have been made under Key Result Area 3 of SAREP are both considerable and impressive. These achievements are reflected upon below and this reflection is followed by some more general comments that lead to the recommendations in the following section. The challenges in implementing a program to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation within the context of a regional program should not be under estimated. The provision of safe drinking water and sanitation fits within the competence of national governments rather than a transboundary river commission. Hence this component of SAREP has faced the challenge of working to a large degree separately with the three riparian states of the Okavango basin. These states are at very different levels of development and capacity in terms of water supply and sanitation and have somewhat different approaches to the provision of these services. In general these challenges have been addressed in an intelligent and constructive manner as has been described in the findings section and is emphasized below. Whilst access to water supply and sanitation is a national competence it is highly relevant within the context of the management of transboundary basins. The greatest challenge faced by many communities is often access to safe drinking water. The provision of such access within the context of a regional project implemented through a transboundary river commission builds confidence in the capacity the commission and as such is likely to result in improved functionality. When SAREP started implementing the water supply and sanitation component it sought to establish working relationships with the relevant authorities in the three riparian states. For various reasons, mainly relating to the restructuring of the water sector in Botswana and the limited capacity in the water sector in Angola, the greatest initial traction in this respect was achieved in Namibia. SAREP has established excellent working relationships with the various water sector institutions in the Kavango region. These are primarily DWSSC and NamWater but others include local government. Through these relationships SAREP has provided assistance that has accelerated the prioritization, design and delivery of projects. This has been focused on supporting NamWater in the design and prioritization of schemes – the delivery of these schemes will commence shortly. SAREP has also assisted the Karutci community in the final design and 18 implementation of a water project. The O&M on this project will be taken over by NamWater which should ensure sustainability. By working through government structures SAREP should ensure the sustainability of their interventions and also mobilize government resources for water provision. Whilst SAREP established excellent working relationships in the Rundu area they have only recently started to establish a relationship with the key water sector stakeholders in Windhoek. This is a very positive development but discussions with MAWF and NamWater officials in Windhoek suggest that more needs to be done. Specifically there should be a greater sharing of SAREP plans at an early stage and these should take into account Namibian priorities in the water sector. In addition Namibian officials in Windhoek would like to know more about SAREP water activities in Angola and Botswana, and about SAREP activities under the other themes. Through the relationships established in the Kavango region SAREP has also assisted with the preparation of an IWQM plan for the Rundu area. This has identified a specific problem with oxidation ponds close to Rundu; SAREP are planning to mobilize a technical expert to give advice on addressing these problems – this expert will also look at similar problems elsewhere. SAREP has also provided assistance to the OKBMC and its various task teams. This has allowed the holding of key stakeholder meetings and the development of work plans. This assistance will support the improved management of water resources in the basin. Finally, in Namibia, SAREP has provided assistance to the Denner Foundation that will mobilize funding from this organization and should result in improved water provision for more than 14,000 people. Again by working with an organization that is established and working in the area the sustainability of the SAREP interventions should be ensured. SAREP has completed a condition assessment of 24 schemes in Angola and is currently preparing rehabilitation plans for these schemes. These plans will be shared with the provincial department of water affairs and used as the basis for building capacity in this institution to carry out the rehabilitation and extend the condition assessment to other schemes. Quick wins have already been identified and water availability restored to more than 15,000 people in the Calundo. The Angolan government has indicated that they have sufficient funds for the rehabilitation but need technical support from SAREP to undertake these tasks. SAREP is also developing a plan to provide technical training to staff at the Menongue water treatment plant. Engagement with the water sector in Botswana has only recently commenced. A number of areas of possible collaboration focused around the condition assessment of schemes have been identified. Ongoing discussions should allow clearly definition of the assistance that SAREP could provide. Once a condition assessment has been completed there may be opportunities for SAREP to support the rehabilitation of water schemes in Botswana. As far as sanitation is concerned the most significant progress to date has been in Botswana. CLTS mobilization and training has commenced in the Shakawe area and training in the provision of low cost latrines is planned. These activities will be extended to the Gumare area. CLTS mobilization has started in both Angola and Namibia. Exchange visits from these countries to Botswana are planned to allow engagement with the activities there and for training on the provision of low cost latrines. Also in Botswana SAREP has signed an agreement with the Ngamiland Department of Education under the ‘Adopt a school’ program. Under this agreement SAREP is developing rehabilitation plans for the sanitation facilities at 13 schools and supporting the implementation 19 of these plans at two schools as pilots to show what can be achieved. Once the rehabilitation plans are complete the Ngamiland DoE will seek funding for the implementation of these plans; this will focus on securing funding from the private sector. Health and hygiene education has been provided to the SAREP extension workers and in the communities where SAREP is working including the two schools in Botswana where sanitation pilot projects are being implemented. IWQM plans are also being developed by SAREP and in close association with the health and hygiene education are raising the awareness of water and water quality issues in communities. For example, under one of these plans, in Gumare, a problem has been identified with sewerage settlement ponds which are unfenced and allow access to animals and thus present a potential danger to health. The IWQM plan in this area has identified this problem as an important one to be addressed. To date the water and sanitation result area of SAREP appears to have had limited engagement with the program activities in the Caprivi. Our observations are that access to water and sanitation is a concern in this region and can be used as an incentive for communities to relocate from floodplains and other animal migration corridors. We believe there should be continued and greater engagement between the water and sanitation result area and the SAREP activities in Caprivi. We also note that SAREP is supporting flood management planning in the Caprivi. Based on our engagement this is resulting in two approaches – moving people from the floodplain to reduce the risk of flooding and providing emergency support for those displaced by flooding until they can returned to their houses. Under both these approaches access to water and sanitation must be an important part of any strategy thus emphasizing the need to SAREP to engage on these issues in the Caprivi. We understand that SAREP is in advanced discussions with KAZA and Namibian stakeholders to address this matter and that a foundation has been identified that has agreed to drill boreholes to support the movement of villages away from wildlife corridors. This is an important development that is fully supported; it is also another example of how SAREP has mobilized funding. Finally we return to the issue of support to OKACOM on water resources issues. Our understanding is that significant support in this area has not been possible since the water activities under SAREP are supported under a WASH budget line. As a result requests for the funding of expensive, high tech flood mapping studies and additional high tech hydromet stations in Angola were rejected. The consideration of additional hydromet stations in Angola was shelved because OKACOM could not produce evidence of the functioning of the12 stations already installed through previous US funding. Whilst significant water resource activities have not been possible it must be noted that there have been some important activities undertaken by SAREP such as flood mapping work using aerial photography, community based flood monitoring through fixed gauges in upstream communities at critical junctions in the Angolan portion of the basin, IWQM plans, the support to OKBMC and the support provided to flood management planning in the Caprivi. The possibility of further support to OKACOM on water resources issues should be explored. KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the Context of Global Climate Change Dashboard Summary KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the 20 Context of Global Climate Change1 KRA 4.1 Conflicts over shared resources avoided and mitigated through regional mechanisms. Some fairly good progress that includes: The harmonization of the fishing legislation/policy in all three countries; the development of a trans-boundary fisheries management plan for the three countries; intervention on devil’s claw trade between Angola and Namibia is preventing/mitigating escalation of tension between two countries; the PILUMPS conducted on both sides of the Angolan/Namibian border in the Kavango region have examined and planned for shared resource use between communities in the two countries; development of plans to establish a trans-boundary wildlife corridor. Activity Progress Comment 4.1.1. Establish climate change focal point within OKACOM This has not been established and should be a focus of the remaining SAREP activities. It is urgent that this be established so that other activities can follow after this. 4.1.2. Design a climate change dialogue among OKACOM institutions This is under way but not yet in place. The establishment of a Climate Change Technical Committee is being explored and would contribute to this and it is promising that the Biodiversity TC is addressing climate change. KRA 4.2 Tools, procedures an expertise in place to manage climate change crises 4.2.1. Design and deliver climate change adaptation measures. Several initiatives are under way. CCA measures such as conservation agriculture, flood and fire management, water supply are being piloted. Key: Green – on target, Yellow – significant progress, Red – Limited progress The SAREP workplan states that “SAREP’s strategy is to build climate change adaptive management capacity in OKACOM, while building the enabling social capital in the basin that will make adaptation management effective and sustainable.” This implies a two-fold focus on firstly, OKACOM and secondly other stakeholders in the basin. The first focus on building capacity in OKACOM has only made moderate progress. However, the second focus has achieved some progress through a number of projects building local adaptive capacity. In making this assessment it must be noted that funds for this key result area have only become available during the last six months or less; this is approximately 12 months after they were scheduled to be available. In order to assess whether adaptive management has been built in the project and at the two levels of OKACOM and local livelihoods, it would have been helpful to have more material on how concepts are being defined. This would include supporting material on what is meant by “adaptive management capacity” and how it will be assessed over the course of the project to determine whether the support for building adaptive management has been effective and/or sustainable or not. The Work plan states that there will be a focus on “wide-scale coalition-building around climate change adaptation that treats the basin and its people as a whole, and imparts responsibility and rewards for actions that mitigate uncertainty.” This is particularly important in complex systems and it is important that the socio-ecological system is constantly referenced in current and future work in order to ensure that people and the environment are not treated as separate. This recognition of the system that includes both people and the environment is evident in parts 1 Funding for this result area only became available during the last six months or less – this is about a year later than was originally scheduled 21 but more emphasis could be placed on the inter-connectedness of the system both within and across KRAs. A vulnerability assessment has been outlined and this is being followed up with a group of stakeholders (including UCT, USAID, SAREP and RESILIM) to map out a joint methodology toward basin level vulnerability assessments in the Okavango and Limpopo basins. Experience from recent country level vulnerability assessment work in Uganda indicates that the vulnerability assessment process itself provides an excellent vehicle for information sharing and coalition building around climate issues. The vulnerability assessment will need to be supported by a strategy for how this understanding of vulnerability might be built upon to adapt to climate change. It is encouraging to see the range of activities that have been included under adaptation so far (including flood early warning, conservation agriculture, climate change awareness etc). These all add to building adaptive capacity. However, activities are often identified for particular sectors, and it is necessary to go beyond this to ensure that holistic adaptation responses are supported (that might include an integrated look at water management, agriculture and livelihood security). This needs to be explored at the household, district and regional level. A focus could be placed on how to reduce key vulnerabilities at each scale and identifying the types of adaptation responses that would address these. This would need to be done in consultation with the climate change scenarios that might include both an analytical scientific assessment as well as a participatory process where stakeholders evaluate how robust their current strategies are given expected climatic change. This type of adaptation assessment could also provide a place to define adaptation, adaptive management and how this might be evaluated. This would also be important in supporting planned training activities (under 4.1 and 4.2) to ensure that this training is actually able to address the identified adaptation needs rather than just focusing on issues that have been prioritized in the region previously. The important biodiversity of the Okavango Basin and the fact that the delta is a globally recognized Ramsar site, means that the ‘precautionary principle’ should be employed with regard to the environment and the ecological reserve when development plans are considered. The fact that OKACOM has not yet had any development plans presented to it for a ‘no￾objection’ under the SADC Water Protocol is notable and unfortunate. It is understood that technical teams have informally considered development and have even conducted site visits, but OKACOM will only start to play a central role in ensuring the sustainable use of the resources of the basin, when the member states feel obliged to submit development plans for approval. The Flood Preparedness Early Warning is an important example of strengthening preparedness for extreme climate events, supporting ways to reduce climate impacts before the event. The Early Warning System, on the website (and via SMS scheduled for 2013), is useful in the sense that “flood prediction maps inform flood preparedness and climate change initiatives activities – both of SAREP and local stakeholders”. However, it will be important to assess the usefulness of this information. Are users happy with the type of information received and method of receipt and how has this information been used and contributed to reducing flood risk? Building climate change awareness within government is an important component that has been highlighted but the means for doing this need to be evaluated. Workshops and communication material etc can play an important role, but the evidence is seen when governmental stakeholders are able to apply climate change information and understanding in their work. So it would be useful to have a survey or evaluation of how government responses have started to consider climate change and what supported these new responses (was it information provided 22 through SAREP or the incentive of international funding and the need to complete NAPs etc) as well as asking what further support is needed. There are still gaps in the knowledge base about climate change and the Okavango Basin. It is unclear whether the basin is currently in a wet cycle, or if this is related to climate change. Having a better understanding of this is necessary for long-term planning in the region. Hydro station data could help to provide more specific information rather than relying solely on the climate models. Further understanding of future hydrology driven by downscaled climate models would help to provide more insight into the climate dynamics that could then be integrated into adaptive planning. Given what is laid out in the workplan, it is important that at the end of the project you are able to assess: - How climate change adaptive management approaches have been incorporated into the decision-making mechanisms of OKACOM - How knowledge and understanding of climate trends have improved - How community stakeholders have been involved in building their own capacities to respond to uncertainties and what this has entailed. Currently it is not clear how monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken and how these questions will be answered so planning for the option period should address this. KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals Dashboard Summary KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals KRA 5.1. Investments increased in water supply and sanitation and biodiversity conservation Activity Progress Comment 5.1.1. Integrate SAREP planning techniques into regional, national, and local planning 35 PILUMPs developed. 15 conservancy planning documents developed. PILUMPs developed but limited integration in district, basin and national plans. Good progress has been made with mainstreaming SAREP biodiversity-related planning techniques and instruments like MOMS, LUCIS and related derivatives as well as the SAP and NAPs. KRA 5.2. Development plans measure progress towards Millennium Development Goals 1, 6 and 7 5.2.1. Targets and indicators incorporated in regional, national, and local development plans There has been little progress against this KRA. Progress against the MDGs is not being tracked, though, in principle, it could be. SAREP is monitoring the progress of their activities but no information can be found on reporting against MDG targets KRA 5.3. More people informed about and have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment2 5.3.1. Assess and implement approaches to preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in TBAs Little progress made on addressing HIV/AIDS. There have been several plans developed on a country specific basis, but these have only been implemented to a limited extent in Some progress in Botswana where funding is available. HIV is being integrated into other activities. Support from other PEPFAR funded 2 Funds that have been available for the HIV/AIDs interventions have been significantly less than originally anticipated. The funds that have been committed are only available for utilisation in Botswana. 23 Botswana. A work plan has been prepared for implementation on HIV by Chemonics for Botswana initiatives is being initiated and discussions on the range and level of support that can be offered need to be agreed. Data collection on HIV counseling, testing, prevention and treatment should be undertake in collaboration with country level health services and NGOs The plan should detail the approach for prevention and treatment services. Additional Funding and/or support should be sought for HIV/AIDS support activities in Angola and Namibia through PEPFAR funding Key: Green – on target, Yellow – significant progress, Red – Limited progress PILUMPs This has been a very important process and seems to have raised significant environmental awareness which should result in improved environmental management. Actions plans for the implementation of PILUMPs are being developed; these are essential to ensure a sustainable flow of benefits for communities. This matter is addressed further under KRA2 and the cross￾cutting theme relating to achieving a flow of benefits for communities. As has been indicated elsewhere achieving such a flow of benefits should be a major focus of SAREP for the rest of the implementation period; this could in part be supported by SAREP grants. Integration of PILUMPs into local planning processes has commenced in Botswana and is closely linked to the establishment of conservancies in Na;mibia; we do not know the situation in Angola since, as explained earlier, it was not possible to visit the part of the basin in southern Angola. Further action is needed on the integration of PILUMPs into local planning processes. Details on the PILUMP clusters and the livelihood opportunities in the PILUMP areas are given in Annex VI. Progress against MDGs SAREP are monitoring their activities specifically against their targets and their partners should be aware of this information. We have found no evidence of reporting against the MDGs. HIV / AIDs Whilst significant progress has been made by SAREP in the other program areas, the effects of HIV in all three project countries has the potential to reduce the overall impact of the SAREP project, both through morbidity and mortality of staff and their families engaged in the program. The primary project concerns with environmental and sustainable livelihoods issues, including the transfer of skills to develop and maintain these in the long term will be affected by the high HIV prevalence noted in all three countries where SAREP undertakes work and will therefore remain a factor in allowing the project to achieve and sustain its outcomes The general agreement based on studies undertaken by the member countries indicates that the prevalence of HIV in Namibia and Botswana in the areas where SAREP operates is higher than the national prevalence. The variation between urban and rural communities HIV prevalence is minimal but studies suggest that the impact in rural areas and in rural 24 communities may be higher due to the economic impact of the disease (e.g. cost of health seeking behaviour, treatment and funeral expenses and the loss of skilled rural labourers. 3 ) The incidence and prevalence of HIV in rural areas in Angola remains complicated to assess but is fuelled by labour migration to and from urban centres. In Botswana the national HIV prevalence (2010 antenatal survey) was 25% with two districts covered by SAREP at higher prevalence (Okavango 26.2 and Ngamiland 27.8) In Namibia the rates are highest in the North Eastern Districts (Rundu and Katima Mulilo) where the rates rise to 32 – 36 per 100,000 in the latter district.4 SAREP originally planned to provide HIV services as part of its contractual obligations to all three countries under its contractual obligations. The three countries where SAREP operates are at different stages in the development of their understanding their HIV epidemics and preparing their responses to the epidemic. All three countries have produced national plans setting out their HIV priorities. Each country has provided a 2012 report in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) indicators that can provide a common national baseline for the assessment of progress against project objectives. HIV Data in Angola in the region covered by the project is slightly less detailed and robust than in comparable districts in Botswana and Namibia, although there are increased attempts to strengthen data collection systems and quality within the Angolan districts. Consideration could be given to increasing project funds to specifically support the initiative in Angola which has a more limited response through PEPFAR funded programs in these districts in assisting with data mapping and analysis of HIV support interventions. This planning has been limited by financial constraints within the SAREP program itself. The reductions in funding for the HIV element of the program have meant that despite starting negotiations with various NGOs in the country to determine how to address the HIV component of the program, the overall funding limit of US$ 100,000 has meant that these negotiations have proved impossible to take forward. SAREP had engaged in negotiations with SIAPAC in Namibia regarding a proposed SAREP support program for HIV as noted in the SAREP Annual Report (October 2010 through September 2011) prepared for USAID. The reduction in project funds meant that this initiative could not be taken forward. Currently the project has provided services in Botswana and to a limited scale. Plans are being advanced to take these issues forward but the proposed budget will reduce the potential impact of the proposed initiatives. Progress on the implementation of the HIV component of the program has been slow, but there are factors that mitigate for this. At the outset of the project it was anticipated that HIV/AIDS activities would be a small component of the overall program. Consideration must also be given to whether the lessons learned from the Botswana element of the program could be sustained and replicated in other countries at the current rate of funding. 3 Factors Fuelling the HIV/AIDS Pandemic in Africa’s Rural Communities, R Agunga, R Sundarajan Ohio Agricultural Research& Development Center, The Ohio State University USA 4 http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/knowyourresponse/countryprogressreports/2012countries/ 25 SAREP has recently developed a work plan for its HIV and AIDS activities in Botswana but this could be improved upon in two specific areas. The first is that much of the baseline data for HIV and the responding activities is either held by these partners or their Botswana government counterparts, including district health managers. The second issue suggests that the work plan would benefit from a rapid analysis of the HIV priorities that could best be supported in the communities served by SAREP. It is understood that SAREP intends to do this in the immediate future, with a view to establishing HIV priorities in 12 – 14 villages in Botswana. There are budgetary and technical risks that will need to be addressed in this process. These include the potential for unrealistic expectations being presented that SAREP cannot meet under its current budget; that high risk/high demand groups are underrepresented/unheard (e.g. young women & girls) and the potential inability of PEPFAR funded partners to meet demands outside their existing scope of work having raised community expectations. All these issues should be addressed by greater consultation on the potential demands that may be raised. These consultations should take place with Botswana Government officials and with the PEPFAR partner organizations that have indicated that they are willing to work with SAREP and which have indicated that they have an understanding of the SAREP priorities. A review of the work plan seeking the views of PEPFAR funded partner’s needs to be undertaken. The process for defining priorities and evaluating the impact of SAREP interventions in the current proposal has not been adequately articulated and not all PEPFAR partners were aware that a work plan had been developed. It is strongly recommended that the HIV priorities for intervention align with the National Strategic Framework for HIV (NSF) developed by the Government of Botswana (1 Prevention of new infections;2 system strengthening; 3 strategic information and 4 scale up of treatment care and support). Discussions with USAID need to take place to agree whether the current limit of program activity for Botswana only is adequate or whether there is a need to engage Namibia and Angola in similar schemes, with additional budgetary or logistical resource increases. The current model under development in Botswana which consists of SAREP staff identifying HIV priorities with local communities and then leveraging appropriate PEPFAR partner support to address these issues has relevance. There are risks linked to this process – community expectations may be diffuse or unrealistic; there may not be an adequate range of partners to address all community needs that are identified within their scope of work; the monitoring and evaluation framework that underpins the interventions will need to be clearly defined before any interventions are made and the process for evaluating impacts identified and the issues of sustainability once PEPFAR programs are completed will still need to be addressed. Progress against indicators Indicator Total achieved1 Base period Option period Target % of target achieved Target % of target achieved KRA 1 - Cooperative management of targeted shared river basins improved 1. Number of science-based systems improved at the national/regional level (Output) 5 2 250% 3 167% 2. Number of people within Okavango￾Basin related institutions trained in technical and/or institutional strengthening areas (Output) 308 142 217% 250 123% 3. Number of improved water resource 0 85 0% 152 0% 26 allocation plans (Impact) 4. Number of Okavango-Basin related institutions providing improved services to their constituencies (Impact) 5 3 167% 6 83% KRA 2 - Biodiversity and ecosystem services monitored and protected 5. Number of threat assessments to biologically important areas developed and monitored (Output) 36 21 171% 33 109% 6. Number of people trained in NRM and/or biodiversity conservation at the institutional and community level (Output) 2506 1398 179% 2500 100% 7. Number of community-based NRM plans developed and implemented (Output) 36 19 189% 32 113% 8. Area (hectares) under improved natural resources management - In Millions (Impact) 5.6 2.1 267% 4 140% 9. Area (hectares) of biologically important area under improved management - In Millions (Impact) 5.6 1.25 448% 3 187% 10. Number of people engaged in new or enhanced conservation based income generating activities (Output) 0 2250 0% 5000 0% 11. Amount of resources leveraged for sustainable management and conservation of biologically important areas - In $Millions (Output) 0.23 2 11% 5 5% KRA 3 - Access to safe water supply and sanitation increased 12. Number of people trained in water use, conservation, and sanitation at the institutional and community level (Output) 996 1455 68% 2500 40% 13. Number of people in target area with access to improved drinking water (Impact) 16000 9750 164% 20000 80% 14. Number of people in target area with access to improved sanitation services (Impact) 1590 12500 13% 25000 6% 15. Amount of resources leveraged for investment in drinking water and sanitation services - In $Millions (Output) 0.55 2 28% 5 11% KRA 4 - Targeted river basins resources managed in the Context of Global Climate Change (GCC) 16. Number of people with increased adaptive capacity to cope with climate variability (Impact) 22100 19750 112% 30000 74% 17. Number of different tools adopted by governmental, nongovernmental institutions, or communities to manage climate caused crises such as floods, droughts, and fires (Output) 2 9 22% 12 17% KRA 5 -Regional, national, and local development planning capacities around river basins (for 27 land and water use, biodiversity conservation) strengthened 18. Number of project beneficiaries more informed about HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and access to treatment (Impact) 129 36500 0% 60000 0% Namibia Buy-In 19. Number of people in Namibia with increased capacity to cope with floods (Impact) 22100 6000 368% 6000 368% 20. Area (hectares) in Namibia under improved flood management plans - In Millions (Impact) 0.178 0.02 890% 0.02 890% Project Training Total Number of people trained in direct support of program objectives (Output) 3324 39495 8% 65250 5% 1. SAREP Quarterly Report. FY 2013 Q1 – October to December 2012 Key: Green – exceeded target, Yellow – on schedule (more than 67% for the base period and more than 50% for the option period), Red – behind schedule For the base period, in simple terms and assuming each of the indicators can be given equal weight 12 of the 21 indicators have been exceeded, one is on schedule and 8 are behind schedule. In many cases targets have been exceeded by a significant amount. By any measure progress against the delivery of the base period targets must be considered to be excellent. The situation per result area for the base period is as follows: KRA1 (3 exceeded target, 0 on schedule, 1 behind schedule), KAR2 (5, 0, 2), KRA3 (1, 1, 2), KRA4 (1, 0, 1), KRA5 (0, 0, 1). The situation for the Namibia (Caprivi) buy-in is that the target has been exceeded for both indicators; the Caprivi buy-in indicators relate to land management to reduce flood risk so can be considered to be part of KRA2. These findings relating to the base period targets largely reflect our findings in terms of activities in as far as KRA2 is achieving most progress, KRAs 1 and 3 are making significant progress, and KRA’s 4 and 5 are making more limited progress. In terms of the option period targets 9 of the 21 indicators have been exceeded, three are on schedule and 9 are behind schedule. Again this must be considered as excellent progress given that the program is effectively at its mid-point – 12 of the 21 indicators are on or ahead of schedule in terms of the option period targets. The situation per result area against the option period targets is as follows: KRA1 (2 exceeded target, 1 on schedule, 1 behind schedule), KAR2 (5, 0, 2), KRA3 (0, 1, 3), KRA4 (0, 1, 1), KRA5 (0, 0, 1). The situation for the Namibia (Caprivi) buy-in is that the target has been exceeded for both indicators. For many of the indicators that are behind schedule the program has laid a significant foundation and there must be every chance that these indicators will be achieved or exceeded during the option period if not in the base period. For example, SAREP has assisted with the development of a GEF/UNDP Project that will start later this year. The concept has been approved by GEF and the project value is $3 million. We feel the KRA5 target, indicator 18, is ambitious if this component of the program is only active in Botswana since the total population of Ngamiland is about 100,000 people and approximately half of these live in Maun. It would appear to us that the number of people trained target is an aggregation of the indicator 2, 6, 12 and 18 targets. For the reason given above in respect of indicator 18 we feel that this target is also ambitious. 28 Cross-cutting themes Delivering a flow of benefits to local communities People in rural local communities, as with people in most areas, generally act in a way that is in their perceived self-interest. It is notable that the people in the Okavango Basin, while resource rich, are regarded as the poorest people in their respective countries – Angola, Namibia and Botswana. These communities have been the custodians of their respective environments over generations. In the case of Angola, the war that local communities were exposed to was one of the factors that limited the development of the region and maintained the high levels of poverty and low infrastructure development. With the end of the war, it is understandable that people expect some form of ‘peace dividend’ in the form of development opportunities. These development opportunities are linked to the natural resources of the area. Populations and expectations are rising throughout the basin area and local people have enjoyed limited opportunities from the natural environment and the integrity of the Okavango system. The big beneficiaries of the system have been the Okavango Delta concession holders. Local communities are now demanding benefits and opportunities. If these are not provided through the sustainable utilization and beneficiation of the natural resource base, they will be sought through other, less sustainable means. It is not reasonable to expect the poor people who have long suffered the negative effects associated with low levels of development to continue in poverty and bear the brunt of the impacts of wildlife without adequate forms of compensation and reward. Local people are being expected to relocate away from their traditional locations on the floodplains or in the wildlife corridors so that the wildlife can move freely and to limit human-wildlife conflict. Chief Myuni relocated his own traditional ‘palace’ many years ago as an example to others, but he still has no water or electricity services. It is therefore vital that an optimal mix of sustainable development approaches is carefully considered and supported. Initiatives promoted by SAREP, like Conservation Agriculture, craft production and tourism must yield a return commensurate with other competing land and resource use options. People want improved incomes, job opportunities and services like water, sanitation and other community￾level facilities. If the sustainable approaches do not provide these tangible benefits in a way that is recognized by local community members, all the work of the conservation champions like Chief Myuni will be undone. With increasing numbers of wildlife like elephants and an increasing human population, increasing levels of conflict are inevitable. People must feel that the benefits that they derive from the wildlife are greater than the dis-benefits associated with the negative impact of the animals. If SAREP is to be taken seriously by the communities on the ground it must be instrumental in delivering this flow of benefits to local communities in an equitable way. Without these services, the efforts will not prove sustainable. It was pointed out to us during our consultations in Angola that many of these services require the provision of infrastructure. Whilst some of SAREPs activities will mobilize funds for infrastructure it has a very limited internal budget for infrastructure. Some of those with whom we consulted felt that SAREP should have funds for the provision of infrastructure since this would increase government buy-in to the program. Sustainability Ensuring sustainability is essential for programs such as SAREP if they are going to be seen as a success in the longer term. Sustainability is a multi-faceted issue with several dimensions such as institutional sustainability – including human resource capacity in terms of numbers, skills and systems, financial / economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability. 29 During implementation (and even to some extent in design) SAREP has taken many steps to try and ensure the sustainability of their interventions. The integration of sustainability considerations from the start of the project is to be applauded because; whilst it is not possible to ensure sustainability during the implementation of a project, unless steps are taken to address sustainability during implementation there is a very high probability that interventions will not be sustainable. A number of the steps taken by SAREP to try and ensure sustainability are illustrated below. As has been mentioned in the previous section a flow of benefits to local communities is essential if the SAREP interventions are to be sustainable. Such a flow of benefits addresses the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability as well as to some extent the capacity and financial / economic dimensions. SAREPs livelihood activities under KRA2 are critical here and, as has already been mentioned, should be given an ever increasing focus during the remainder of the implementation period. Similarly access to drinking water and sanitation, addressed under KRA3, is a benefit to communities since it has health and subsequent economic benefits. Without access to these services it will be more difficult to accrue the livelihood benefits being addressed by SAREP. Much of SAREPs intervention at the community level has been carried out by NGOs under the supervision of SAREP activity managers. In most cases these NGOs have been active in the communities for a number of years and will continue to be active after the SAREP project has been completed. The value of this approach is best illustrated by IRDNC who have been providing support to the conservancies in the Caprivi for more than 20 years. IRDNC is known and trusted by the conservancies. By taking such an approach SAREP are addressing institutional sustainability and to a lesser extent both social and financial sustainability (since the NGOs have multiple sources of financing which should ensure they can continue their activities with the communities after SAREP has been finalized). In addition SAREP has enhanced the capacity of these NGOs which means they are better equipped to support the communities. Again, this is well illustrated by the capacitating of IRDNC to support flood risk management in the Caprivi – this is a skill that they did not previously have and that can now be used throughout their work. The use of NGOs is a major success of the program. However, the benefit, and thus sustainability, can be enhanced even further if a mechanism can be created for SAREPs different NGO partners to share their experiences. Such experience sharing will also allow SAREP to benefit from the previous experience of their NGO partners, for example, the experience of IRDNC on HIV programs in the Caprivi. SAREP has worked with government institutions at many levels – supra-national through the various OKACOM structures, national through the Angolan, Botswana and Namibian national departments of environment and water, and sub-national through regional structures of national governments and local government structures such as regional councils. The buy-in of these government structures is essential since they have the long term responsibility for many of the activities being supported by SAREP. By working with these structures SAREP is contributing to the institutional and to a lesser extent the financial dimensions of sustainability. As has already been indicated whilst SAREPs engagement at local level has been extremely good more needs to be done concerning the engagement and support to national and supra-national structures. A cross cutting aspect of all SAREP interventions has been the development of the capacity of their implementing partners whether these be government structures, NGOs or communities. Whilst this is an ongoing process, greater focus is needed at the national government and 30 supra-national level during the rest of the implementation period. The development of capacity is critical for the sustainability of the SAREP interventions. Whilst there has been limited progress under KRA4 and KRA5 aspects relating to climate change adaptation and HIV / AIDS will influence the long term sustainability of the SAREP interventions. Building capacity for resilience to climate change is essential in the Southern Africa region. Whilst a number of activities such as conservation agriculture, flood management and the provision of water access are already being undertaken, more should be done in respect of resilience to climate change. As far as HIV / AIDs are concerned the impact of the pandemic is undermining the capacity for management in the region. Dealing with this situation and the impact it has on institutional capacity, including both the number and skills of staff, is essential to the achievement of institutional sustainability. Whilst SAREP has been addressing sustainability since its inception will feel that even greater focus is needed in this area. We feel that a sustainability strategy (or exit strategy) should be developed covering all SAREP activities. This should be shared and agreed with SAREP stakeholders and regularly monitored through the SAREP M&E and reporting structures. The sustainability strategy should try to ensure that in the future government budgets are secured for the continuation of key activities commenced by SAREP. Communication Without exception our interaction with SAREP stakeholders has resulted in positive comments about the program. This is an important point to note and a positive reflection on the program and its implementation. This having been said there are also many comments concerning how the impact of the program can be further enhanced – these are being addressed in this report. Many of these comments relate to communication both internal to the program and with external stakeholders. Communication for a program such as SAREP is always going to be a challenge given the many themes being addressed and the operations in three countries. Whilst acknowledging that much has already been done there have also been many suggestions on how communication can be further enhanced. Communication or marketing for a project such as SAREP is very important to its success since it is only though this mechanism that stakeholders can truly understand all the dimensions of the program activities and the potential impact of these activities. Internal communication As has been mentioned above SAREP is operating under a number of themes – biodiversity, WASH, climate change adaptation, HIV / AIDs – and in three countries – Angola, Botswana and Namibia. In addition SAREP has a number of offices – a strategy / planning / management office in Gaborone, Botswana, a technical office in Maun, Botswana, a satellite office in Rundu, Namibia and ‘virtual’ offices in the Caprivi, Namibia and Menongue and Luanda in Angola. Given this situation, communication is a great challenge and whilst much is already being done we feel that an even greater emphasis needs to be given to internal communication. Greater interaction and coordination appears to be needed between the different program themes – biodiversity, WASH, HIV / AIDS, livelihoods, community development. In addition there should be better communication between the different Activity Managers and extension facilitators that are working in Angola, Botswana and the Kavango and Caprivi regions of Namibia. Our view is that the current internal communications mechanisms should be reviewed and a revised strategy should be developed to ensure that all SAREP staff members are fully conversant with all the activities of the program no matter what their theme or geographical area of operation. Whilst such an objective may be ambitious it is important to note that the SAREP staff are the ambassadors for the program so it is very important they have a full understanding of all the 31 program’s operations. With this knowledge they will be able to better explain what SAREP is doing and also ensure integration of learning across all SAREP themes and geographical areas of operation. External communication External communication is essential for the engagement of SAREP stakeholders at all levels and for the integration of SAREP activities with other programs active in the region. Our engagement with stakeholders during this evaluation has indicated that communication at the supra-national level, with the various structures of OKACOM, is sufficient. We also feel that the communication at the sub-national level and with communities is sufficient. However we note that this communication tends to relate to a specific theme of the program rather than the program in general. As has been mentioned previously, specifically under KRA3, we feel that the main area where communication needs to be improved is at the national level in the three countries and especially in Namibia. Discussions with MAWF and NamWater officials in Windhoek suggest that more needs to be done. Specifically there should be a greater sharing of SAREP plans at an early stage and these should take into account Namibian priorities in the water sector. In addition Namibian officials in Windhoek would like to know more about SAREP water activities in Angola and Botswana, and about SAREP activities under the other themes. Our discussions have also indicated that communication could be improved with the USAID bilateral programs in Angola and Namibia – we return to the subject of integration between USAID regional and bilateral programs later. We note that SAREP has already recognized the need for improved external communication and has re-deployed a member of SAREP staff to focus on outreach and communication activities. We are fully supportive of this decision and whilst we do not want to pre-empt this process and any planned activities, we give below some suggestions which have been made to us to improve external communication to illustrate what can be done, - Ensure that all SAREP staff members are fully conversant with all program activities so that they can act as SAREP ambassadors – this is covered above under internal communication. - Prepare and circulate widely, monthly newsletters on SAREP activities - Prepare and circulate information on SAREP activities in each of the countries. - Prepare and circulate case studies to illustrate SAREP activities – for example the PILUMP process, flood risk management, school sanitation in Botswana, the CLTS process etc. - We feel consideration should be given to commissioning a video/film production of the SAREP challenges and successes. This could target a wider area and be undertaken together with KAZA. Costs do not have to be high. SAREP and KAZA could pay for the basics, but the product could then be marketed to various potential buyers like Al Jazeera or other stations. This would ensure that it reaches a broad target that is bound to include potential supporters and future tourists to the areas. It could provide a powerful platform for publicly ‘rewarding’ decision-makers for their enlightened approach as well as popularizing the idea of a “bio-dividend” to rural communities who nurture their biodiversity. This list of potential external communication activities is not intended to be either comprehensive or exhaustive but simply to illustrate some of the suggestions that we have received during the stakeholder engagement as part of this evaluation. 32 Communications with Angola poses a particular challenge since Portuguese is the official language and also because of cultural differences from the other two countries; we were told during our visit to Angola that the Government will only comment on Portuguese versions of reports – including this report – which places the burden of translation on SAREP. There are also physical challenges in Angola because of poorer road and mobile phone networks. Visa requirements also mean longer planning lead times for activities in Angola. SAREP has taken positive steps to address these challenges by appointing a representative in Luanda to coordinate with the Angolan Government as well as an activity manager based in Menongue; both of these individuals are provided by ACADIR. To maximize the benefit of these representatives it is essential that they are kept fully briefed on all SAREP activities because of the essential interface that they form with Angolan Government officials at national and provincial level. As far as Visa’s are concerned we are fully aware that USAID can provide support since they assisted us with obtaining visas. It was also suggested that SAREP should develop closer working relationships with Angolan Embassies in Botswana, Namibia (and South Africa) by informing them about SAREP and the needs to SAREP staff to travel to Angola; it was felt that this would facilitate the more efficient and faster issuing of visas. Alignment with OKACOM The SAREP project builds on previous USAID support through the Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) that integrate improved water and sanitation services with strategies that address threats to ecosystem services and biodiversity within priority shared river basins. In fact the result areas of SAREP are based on discussions held at a workshop held during 2008 towards the end of IRBM. The SAREP contract was awarded to Chemonics and their partners in June 2010 and started shortly afterwards. There had been significant developments in OKACOM between the 2008 workshop and the mobilization of Chemonics on the SAREP project in the second half of 2010. These developments, based around the TDA and SAP, had allowed OKACOM to better define its priorities and support requirements. Stakeholders from the Okavango states indicated to us that whilst there was still broad alignment between the OKACOM priorities and those in the SAREP project there were differences in detail that were significant. Whilst there are differing views on this matter our consultations have generally indicated that this problem could have been avoided if there had been greater engagement between USAID and OKACOM during the intervening period. It has been indicated to us that as a result of the time gap between the end of IRBM and the start of SAREP, together with the developments in OKACOM was a delay in the full mobilization of SAREP because the partnership needed to be re-established with OKACOM and SAREP needed to re-align its activities with the OKACOM priorities. The start of this process was an Inception workshop held in Gaborone in October 2010 and its end is indicated by the approval of the SAREP workplan in mid 2011 – a delay of nearly twelve months. It is very helpful that the first SAREP workplan includes a table showing the alignment between the SAP and SAREP – the major gaps not addressed by SAREP relate to hydrological, water quality and groundwater monitoring. We are not suggesting that there were not very useful activities carried out by SAREP during its first year of operation; we are simply noting that it took nearly twelve months for the first SAREP workplan to be approved by OKACOM. In addition we have been advised that it took even longer to establish the close working relationship between OKACOM and SAREP which is essential for the success of the project. This has now been achieved and SAREP is considered to be a OKACOM project rather than just a project that is operating in the Okavango basin. The inputs of all parties to achieve this synergy is to be applauded but in the 33 view of a number of stakeholders it could have been avoided if a closer relationship had been built between USAID and OKACOM following the completion of IRBM. Another potential reason for this delay was the need for SAREP to develop systems of operation for the implementation of the project that, as mentioned earlier, covers three countries and a number of themes. We were advised during our mission to Luanda that IRBM developed extremely good systems and the view was expressed that these should have been used by SAREP. Whilst we believe that SAREP has now developed and is operating robust systems, and we have not been able to independently verify these statements concerning the IRBM systems, we feel that this matter should be investigated further to see if SAREP can augment its systems by utilizing some of those used by IRBM. On a somewhat different but related matter it is noted that the overall agreement under which SAREP falls is between USAID and SADC, specifically the SADC Water Division. The SADC Water Division has indicated that OKACOM should be the primary implementing partner for SAREP and that SAREP should align its activities with the OKACOM priorities. As has been noted earlier only some of SAREPs activities relate to water and even then these are primarily WASH activities rather than IWRM activities which are the more usual domain of transboundary river basin organizations such as OKACOM. The reason for SAREPs relationship with OKACOM is clear and sensible because of the earlier IRBM program. However it must be noted that there are other divisions within the SADC Secretariat, noticeably, FANR (Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources) that address many of the topics covered by SAREP, such as natural resource management and climate change. Whilst we have been advised that the SADC Water Division will ensure internal coordination across the SADC divisions and programs in relation to the USAID support we feel that it would be beneficial if SAREP could share information with other key divisions in SADC. Following this rather extended preface concerning the alignment between SAREP and OKACOM we note that SAREP has, is and should continue to support the priorities of OKACOM. These have already been described elsewhere so will not be repeated here. However, we would like to emphasize the contribution that SAREP has made through the support given to the development of the NAPs and, the development and capacity building in relation to the DSS. In addition SAREP has supported a number of science based activities that have added valuable information that can be utilized by OKACOM to improve management of the basin. This support to OKACOM should continue and should focus on supporting the implementation of the NAPs. Creating links between high level structures and activities on the ground SAREP is the latest in a list of initiatives in the basin area including; ODMP, EPSMO, Biokavango etc. The success of SAREP will ultimately be judged by whether it has made an incremental contribution to advancing the sustainability of the Okavango Basin. To be successful, SAREP needs to operate at three levels. Firstly, at a high, policy level with OKACOM. Second, it needs to operate at a technical level with middle-level government officials and NGOs in providing tools and capacity building for the sustainable management of the basin. Lastly, SAREP has to provide tangible benefits on the ground with local people. Operating at three levels like this can be challenging, but it is vital to the success of SAREP that they are effective at all three levels. When considering where decisions are made that will ultimately affect the sustainability of the Okavango River Basin, it is clear that decisions to proceed or not to proceed with large-scale developments that will impact upon the basin system will be made at a high ministerial and 34 Permanent Secretary level within the three countries. This level should be the domain of OKACOM and SAREP needs to assist OKACOM to be more effective in its interaction with the high level decision-makers. SAREP needs to assist OKACOM to provide sound, science-based information that can be used to influence the high-level decision-making and to assist OKACOM, which is only a recommendatory body, to ‘nudge’ the decision-makers towards making the best-informed decisions. Whereas the fundamental decisions about the development and management of the basin are taken at a high level, they are filtered and interpreted for implementation by middle-level government officials and NGOs. It is vital that SAREP continues to provide technical support and capacity-building to these functionaries so that the implementation of sound, science-based decisions is facilitated. The importance of this level should not be underestimated. The performance of functionaries at this level will ultimately determine the sustainability of the initiatives started by SAREP. OKACOM has been successful in building relationships between the commissioners and technical support staff to the Commission over many years. This building of a higher level of trust is important. However, our consultations have suggested that OKACOM is relatively unknown on the ground. The ultimate test of OKACOM and of SAREP is what local community members actually do on the ground in the basin area. SAREP results on the ground are OKACOM successes. Whilst it took some efforts for OKACOM to embrace this concept, SAREP was recently criticized by the OKACOM Commissioners for not giving OKACOM more opportunities to take credit for these results. For this reason, SAREP must continue to enhance OKACOM’s presence on the ground through its interaction with local community structures and people. OKACOM needs to be informed about activities on the ground. Decisions taken at the higher levels do have an impact on the activities on the ground and on people’s livelihoods, but this is not a one-way effect. An example of this is the recent decision in two Southern African states to ban hunting. Hunting concessions through contractual arrangements between government and local community structures and between these organized and registered community structures and professional hunters provided local communities with a direct cash income and a stream of benefits like meat. Tourism and other income sources associated with tourism have largely only provided lesser and indirect benefits. While the decision to ban hunting was made at a high level, the reaction has happened on the ground and these areas are witnessing a dramatic increase in poaching activities. The authorities are now facing a situation where they are in conflict with their own people and the effect on the wildlife is also negative. As mentioned above, operating at these three levels is challenging but vital to the success of SAREP. Despite the challenges faced by OKACOM, SAREP needs to support the institution if the Okavango Basin, with all the likely emerging competing demands on its resources, is to be managed in a sustainable way for all of the inhabitants. Interaction between USAID regional and bilateral programs SAREP is part of the USAID regional program which is operated from Pretoria, South Africa. There is also a contribution from biodiversity bilateral funds allocated to Namibia which is funding the Caprivi buy-in. SAREP does not manage these funds separately. Our recommendation would be that the funds should be fully integrated. USAID bilateral programs operate in each of the three countries of the Okavango basin. These programs focus on health and especially on HIV / AIDS; they also include components on 35 environmental management and in Angola there is some support to farmers. We have met with those operating these programs during the evaluation. As has been recommended under KRA5, we believe there should be closer alignment between SAREP and the bilateral PEPFAR operations which would enable SAREP to achieve a greater impact in the area of HIV / AIDs. In addition, as has been indicated above under communications, SAREP should communicate to the bilateral programs all of the SAREP activities in their respective countries. Whilst much is already being done in this respect we feel it could be improved further. Such communication would allow closer coordination between the bilateral programs and SAREP. Also we recommend that the bilateral programs provide information to SAREP on their activities in the regions of the three countries where SAREP is operating; this should allow SAREP to link more closely with the bilateral programs. SAREP management, planning and reporting procedures This section covers a number of aspects of SAREP internal procedures. At least to some extent these have already been addressed elsewhere most noticeably in the section on communications. Management The diverse nature of the SAREP project both in terms of themes and geographic areas of activity and the challenge this presents for communication is addressed elsewhere and will not be repeated here. SAREP has recently established an office in Rundu in Namibia; Rundu is the second largest town in Namibia and also has easy access into Southern Angola. This office is strategically located close to the center of the active basin; it is close to the areas of SAREP activity in Kavango and Southern Angola, and to a lesser extent those in the Caprivi and Northern Botswana such as Shakawe and the Eastern panhandle. In our view the Rundu office could become a key location for SAREP activities. We have a number of suggestions that we feel could contribute to this, - We understand that internet / email access is a serious challenge. We recommend the purchase of a number of mobile 3G data sticks for those working at or visiting the Rundu office to use. - The office needs to be supplied with documentation of SAREP – maps, reports etc. - Staff based at the Rundu office need to be fully aware of all SAREP activities especially in Namibia and Angola. - The office should continue to be used as a venue for meetings, workshops and information sharing events. This would expose participants to the SAREP staff and also information about SAREP. - Key SAREP technical staff should continue to spend as much time as is practical in the Rundu office. We recommend that a plan is developed to ensure that the Rundu office becomes a key centre for SAREP activities. Finally under this sub-section we make a suggestion concerning the Maun office. The office is the centre of SAREPs technical activities. It is the base for the integrated resource management specialist, the WSS activity manager, the community program coordinator, the M&E specialist, the Botswana activity manager, the WSS activity manager, the HIV / AIDs and volunteer coordinator and was previously the base for the livelihoods specialist. In our view this 36 makes this office key to the coordination of the different themes of the SAREP project. We believe this importance would merit either the CoP or DCoP being based in the Maun office. This possibility should be seriously considered and if agreed should be implemented with immediate effect. Planning The challenges faced by SAREP in preparing, aligning and getting their first workplan approved by OKACOM are addressed elsewhere. The problems in this respect appear to have been overcome and the workplan approval process is now much smoother. Essentially a draft is prepared by SAREP. This is shared the project steering committee which comprises OBSC members. The workplan is then revised to take into account discussions with the steering committee. The OBSC then recommend the workplan to the Commissioners for approval. This process is integrated with the timing of OKACOM structure meetings to ensure smooth operation. It is not clear how widely the workplan is circulated or if it is circulated at all beyond the project, USAID and OKACOM. In our view the workplan could be a valuable document to communicate, both internally and externally, the SAREP plans; we believe this should be considered as part of the communication strategy. Based on our consultations we believe there are at least two areas in which the workplan could be improved, - Currently the workplan splits the activities by KRA and to some degree sub-KRA. Based on our consultations we believe that stakeholders would also appreciate a split of activities by country and in the case of Namibia whether the activity is in Kavango or Caprivi. We note that such a presentation has previously been used in quarterly reports but has now ceased. In our view such a requirement can be easily met simply by indicating where the different activities will be carried out. - A significant number of stakeholders have requested information on expenditure and specifically how much is being spent on different activities and in the three countries. Again we believe such information should be incorporated into the workplan even if it is at a high level such as the financial split between the result areas and between the different geographical areas of operation. Reporting The commentary in terms of reporting is very similar to that for workplans. We understand that it took some while to arrive at a reporting format that met the expectations of USAID and OKACOM. This now seems to have been largely achieved and those stakeholders that have commented on the report seem to consider them to be acceptable. Annual, bi-annual and quarterly reports are produced as are monthly updates. As with workplans, we consider that the SAREP reports could be a valuable communication mechanism for the project and that they should be circulated widely. In fact a number of stakeholders have indicated that they are not currently receiving reports and would like to receive them. Again we believe this should be considered as part of the SAREP communications strategy. Again, as with workplans, and based on our consultations, we believe there are a number of areas in which reports could be enhanced:- - In general the reports indicate progress by result area and also report on the SAREP indicators. In addition some of the specific achievements during the reporting period are 37 highlighted. We note that in some earlier reports activities were reported by geographical area of operations; we feel, based on our discussions with stakeholders, that this form of reporting should be re-instated. - As we indicated under workplans a significant number of stakeholders have requested information on expenditure and specifically how much is being spent on different activities and in the three countries. We believe such information should be incorporated into the reports even if it is at a high level such as the financial split between the result areas and between the different geographical areas of operation. - Finally we think it would be useful if reporting against the relevant workplan could be incorporated since this will allow an easier assessment of overall progress. This could be done in a tabular fashion with one column showing the workplan objective and other columns indicating progress in the reporting period and what is planned in the next reporting period. For annual reports progress against the overall SAREP objectives should also be included. Grants SAREP manages a strategic activities fund (SAF) to support its programmatic goals and objectives. This allows SAREP to strategically engage local organizations with specific experience and services to implement activities that will directly contribute to project results. Part of the SAF is for grants, $ 600,000 in the base period and $ 400,000 in the option period, that provide financial support to accomplish an activity that is consistent with the grantee’s mandate and with SAREP’s objectives. To date we understand that six grants are active and two more have been recommended; the total value of these grants is $ 394,602 or about two￾thirds of the base period allocation. The size of grant ranges from $ 16,127 to $ 195,192. As has been indicated earlier, grants could be a key mechanism for achieving a sustainable flow of benefits for communities, something that we believe is essential for the sustainability and legacy of the SAREP project. In our experience a number of key elements are required for this to happen:- - The grant application criteria and procedure should be communicated clearly in advance and should be as simple as possible - Potential beneficiaries should be provided with support in the preparation of grant applications so as to ensure compliance - The time period for the evaluation and award of grants should be clearly communicated in advance and should be as short as possible. It is important that the indicated timeframes are adhered to. - Following award, support should be available to grantee’s both for the implementation of the grant and to ensure compliance with grant conditions. We know that SAREP are aware of these requirements and are both implementing them and exploring ways in which the grant procedure can be improved. We are supportive of these actions. Further we urge SAREP to allocate the remaining funds as soon as possible within the constraints posed by the impending decision on the extension of the Chemonics contract into the option period. This will allow the maximum time for the implementation of the grants and through this the instigation of a flow of benefits for communities which, as we say above, is essential for the sustainability and legacy of the SAREP project. 38 RECOMMENDATIONS In this section we summarize the recommendations that are inferred in the sections above on findings and conclusions. We have tried to make each recommendation as clear as possible and in addition we have attempted to assign a responsibility, timeframe and one or more indicators to each recommendation. Our assignment of responsibility is based on our understanding of the project management structures; we recognize that our understanding may be incorrect in some respect which could mean that our assignment of responsibility is incorrect. We have tried to assign timeframes and indicators that we believe are realistic taking into account the current demands of the project. We believe that a detailed implementation plan should be developed for these recommendations and that this should be monitored, against the proposed timeframes and indicators, on at least a three monthly basis. We acknowledge that SAREP has already commenced many actions to ensure the delivery of program results. We applaud this approach to adaptive management. The recommendations below and elsewhere in this report cover the most important areas where we feel action is required. We are fully aware that many of these actions have already commenced and include them here for completeness. Before giving our detailed recommendations, which are in alignment with the issues addressed in the findings and conclusions sections, our key recommendation is that SAREP should be extended into the option period. We believe that this is essential if SAREP is to develop a flow of community benefits; which in turn is essential for the sustainability and legacy of SAREP. The extension into the option period should be finalized as soon as possible so as to avoid any interruptions in SAREPs activities. Recommendation Responsibility Timeframe Milestones / indicators KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin Continue to support implementation of NAPs CoP with input from technical experts as required Future workplans and reports to illustrate alignment with NAPs and progress against NAP objectives Future workplans illustrate alignment with NAP objectives. All reports illustrate progress against NAP objectives. Support implementation of OKACOMs institutional review CoP with input from technical experts as required Identify where support can be provided and develop plan within three months. Agree plan with OKACOM within six months then implement and monitor Draft plan by May 2013. Agreed plan by August 2013. Quarterly monitoring of the implementation of the plan. Support to implementation of plans to strengthen basin wide fora in the three countries CoP with input from technical experts as required Agree plans with OKACOM and fora within three months. Then implement and monitor Agreed plan by May 2013. Quarterly monitoring of the implementation of the plan. KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 39 Implement the livelihood support plans, but ensure that long-lasting partnerships are developed to improve the chances of their sustainability. SAREP team as a whole, but will need to have a livelihoods focal point or specialist appointed as a matter of urgency as the implementation of livelihoods projects is a major imperative for the option period of SAREP. This needs to happen as soon as possible, but certainly activities on the ground should start by the middle of 2013. 10 local development plans under implementation with clear sustainability strategies in place by end of 2013. Ensure that any developments undertaken by SAREP remain in line with the latest environmental regulations and procedures of the relevant country. Integrated Resource Management Specialist and sector specialists. To be overseen by the COP. All plans must be vetted for this requirement before they are processed further. This measure should be in place by June 2013. By June 2013 all plans supported by SAREP through the Small Grants facility or other resources, must be vetted for compliance with the latest national environmental regulations of the country within which they are to be implemented. Additional technical support to OKACOM (in all of its configurations, and specifically including the OKBMC Biodiversity Task Team) and the country partners, to address the need for further science-based information to support high-level decision￾making in the basin. COP and Integrated Resource Management Specialist must identify some of the needs with COP. Much of this will be with the detailed action plans that will flow from the NAPs. Over the remaining period of SAREP. A program of action for the support should be drawn-up as soon as possible. 4 key questions relating to the implementation of the NAPs identified for detailed study by June 2013 and completed by end of 2013. A further 4 key questions identified by end of 2013 and completed by June 2014. Place additional emphasis on ensuring that the public sector agencies that are responsible for maintaining the plans and agreements reached with SAREP support are capacitated to continue the processes in the future (see comments under 2.1.2 - 2.1.5 in Findings Section of the report. COP, Deputy COP and Integrated Resource Management Specialist who might contract a service provider to build specific capacities. However, much of the capacity transfer can happen gradually through regular interaction with the appropriate level of government officials. A clear strategy for identifying the specific capacities required and building them should be prepared by June 2013. This should form a part of the exit/sustainability strategy for SAREP. Plan for capacity building should be in place by July 2013 and implementation should begin by August 2013. All identified key personnel in the 3 countries should be trained, capacitated and assessed by September 2014. Compile a lessons learnt document for the insights gained under SAREP. M&E Specialist, Deputy COP as well as specialists and coordinator. The plan for this and the mechanism that will be used to distil the lessons should be developed by June 2013 so that there is time for refinement. Lessons Learnt Plan developed by June 2013 and process to distil the lessons should begin from July 2013 and be completed by end of 2014. Continue to work closely with and COP On-going, but should focus on a Strategy developed by June 2013 40 develop synergies with KAZA. KAZA enjoys a very high level of authority & autonomy. The commitment by high level officials in Angola to KAZA has already served to put a break on planned large-scale agricultural developments in the upper basin. SAREP should explore how this commitment can advance the work of OKACOM. specific strategy on how the commitment to KAZA can be used to strengthen the recommendations of OKACOM. and implementation thereafter. KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation Engagement with key water stakeholders in Windhoek, Namibia needs to be improved further. Develop and implement strategy SAREP technical experts and CoP. Engage with MAWF WR and DWSSC, and NamWater The strategy should be developed over the next 3 months and then implemented. Plan developed by end of May 2013. Review of implementation of stakeholders every three months Engagement with key water stakeholders in Luanda, Angola. Develop and implement strategy WSS technical expert and CoP. Engage with key stakeholders in Luanda. The strategy should be developed over the next 6 months and then implemented. Plan developed by end of August 2013. Review of implementation of stakeholders every three months Support to OKBMC. Develop and implement strategy WSS technical expert to engage with OKBMC stakeholders, OKBMC support officer and MAWF The strategy should be developed over the next 3 months and then implemented. Plan developed by end of May 2013. Review of implementation of stakeholders every three months Support to WSS in the Caprivi. Develop and implement strategy WSS technical expert to engage with SAREP Activity Manager in the Caprivi and IRDNC. The strategy should be developed over the next 3 months and then implemented. Plan developed by end of May 2013. Review of implementation of stakeholders every three months Document the two different models that are emerging in response to the flooding that local communities are subjected to in the Caprivi – re-locating communities permanently away from the floodplains and adjacent areas, or assisting communities in their temporary seasonal migration SAREP activity manager in Caprivi and IRDNC Documentation to be completed in 3 months Documentation of models by May 2013 41 away from the flooded areas to higher ground and providing support and services in the temporary locations. Experience of flood management planning in the Caprivi to be shared with SAREP Activity Managers and extension facilitators elsewhere SAREP activity manager in Caprivi and IRDNC Lesson sharing to completed in next six months. Lessons sharing and / or exchange visit to Caprivi completed by August 2013. Flood management planning incorporated into the revision of all PILUMPs and community management plans. Share SAREP WSS experience with key OKACOM structures WSS technical expert and CoP. Initial lesson sharing at next OKACOM meeting and then at subsequent meetings Lesson sharing with Commissioners, OBSC members and Executive Secretary and OKACOM meetings. Engagement with water institutions in Luanda, Gaborone and Windhoek. Share Botswana experience of school sanitation with other countries and as appropriate provide support. WSS technical expert and activity manager Engage with appropriate Education Departments in areas of Angola and Namibia where SAREP is active within three months As appropriate develop support plans within six months Implement support plans Records of engagement Support plans Monitoring of implementation of support plans. Extend further SAREPs engagement on water resource issues. USAID and CoP Assess possibilities within next three months. If it is possible incorporate into Chemonics contract extension Decision on support Inclusion in Chemonics contract extension Plan for implementation Monitoring of implementation. KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the Context of Global Climate Change Concept note outlining climate￾change related concepts Consultant, supervised by Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP Concept note completed by end June 2013. Document reviewed including concepts on adaptive management, adaptation, enabling social capital, indicators for assessing adaptive capacity Conduct sector-specific study of Consultant, supervised by By August 2013 Impacts on water availability, 42 CC impacts in the basin Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP impacts on water security Conduct sector-specific vulnerability assessments with plans for developing adaptation options Consultant, supervised by Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP By November 2013 E.g. Vulnerability of different livelihood groups (agriculture/livestock dependent) and potential adaptation options Develop plan for how the proposed OKACOM climate change focal point would undertake a collaborative process Focal point with Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP. By July 2013 Document outlining what is expected from focal point activities, how they will be undertaken, what external expertise to bring in Strengthen sustainability of climate change forum through review of process using a professional external facilitator Consultant supervised by Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP. November 2013 Establish clear sense of purpose of forum Evaluate what can and can’t be achieved by forum Assessment of Flood Preparedness Early Warning Consultant supervised by Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP. By July 2013 Method of receipt Use of information How has it contributed to reducing flood risk? Assessment of government’s integration of climate change in policy and practice Consultant supervised by Integrated Resource Management Specialist & Deputy COP. By December 2013. Review of policies for focus on cc Practices showing link to reducing cc impact KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals The HIV/AIDS prevention & treatment section of the SAREP program should continue and agreement should be reached on whether the response is limited to Botswana due to limited funds SAREP COP/USAID Within one month from submission of review findings completed Agreement between USAID & SAREP If Angola and Namibia identify similar needs to Botswana, there will need to be corresponding increases in budget or support services to assist in the development of the HIV/AIDS interventions The current SAREP HIV work plan needs to be shared more widely with key PEPFAR partners SAREP DCOP & PEPFAR Partners (NCONGO, FHI 360, PSI, Peace Corps) By end June 2013 SAREP undertake HIV needs review in Botswana (14 villages) and identify agreed range of 43 By August 2013. intervention needs that address Botswana Government National HIV Strategic Framework priorities. Framework for PEPFAR partner interventions to be developed, including simple but robust M&E framework that monitors uptake of prevention and treatment services by SAREP communities either in Botswana government facilities post SAREP intervention in line with the NSF. SAREP HIV annual work plan should define areas of operation; key partnerships with USG funded and local partners, areas of communication intervention, due dates and projected processes and/or outputs (how many grants, workshops, comics distributed etc) and the geographic locations. SAREP DCOP By September 2013. Mainstreaming HIV prevention and treatment initiatives based on identified local priorities implemented by PEPFAR partners and SAREP at the start of each project year on a country specific basis Delivering a sustainable flow of benefits Provide water & enable support for the mobilization of resources for electricity services to Chief Myuni & his community members who have moved off the floodplain. SAREP WSS with NamWater Within the next cycle of water service provision & power as soon as it can be reticulated into the area. Renewable energy should also be explored if the reticulated power is not likely to be delivered soon. Water services to Chief Myuni’s community in line with government guidelines within the next cycle of service provision. Provide water services to people who have moved because of wildlife. SAREP WSS with NamWater. As soon as it can be inserted in the planned cycle of water provision roll-out services. As soon as it can be inserted in the planned cycle of water provision roll-out services. Provide Conservation Agriculture support to farmers in priority wildlife areas – like areas in Angola & Chief Myuni’s area in NGO & SAREP staff, Integrated Resource Management Specialist By June 2013 Start training & support in Conservation Agriculture by August 2013. At least 10 farmers trained in Angola & Caprivi by 44 Caprivi. September 2013. Provide two sets of fenced areas at rivers where people collect water and cattle are taken to drink to protect them from crocodiles. These areas must be separate. NGO, SAREP Integrated Resource Management Specialist & local government. By July 2013 At least 6 communities most at risk provided with crocodile fencing. Southern Angolan villages and villages in the Caprivi have particular problems with crocodiles. Investigate a community-based tourism model that does not rely solely on privately operated/owned concession lodges. Consultant, supervised by new SAREP Livelihoods Coordinator or by Deputy COP. By August 2013 Feasibility Report study by August 2013. Decision to support 1 community￾based pilot tourism operation by October 2013. Sustainability Sharing of implementation experience between the NGOs working on the SAREP program SAREP activity managers and the NGOs working on the SAREP program Lesson sharing workshop to be held within the next six months and then six monthly for the remainder of the program First lesson sharing workshop to be held by August 2013. Lesson sharing workshops every six months. Develop sustainability (or exit) strategy for SAREP CoP involving SAREP key staff Strategy to be developed in next three months and shared with key partners. Strategy to be finalized taking into account the comments of partners Strategy developed by May 2013 and finalized by August 2013. Progress on implementation of strategy monitored through SAREPs M&E and reporting procedures. Communication Internal communication. Review current process and development and implement new strategy CoP involving SAREP key staff Review to be completed in three months and new strategy developed and being implemented within six months Review by May 2013. New strategy developed and being implements and monitoring by August 2013 External communication. Review current process and development and implement new strategy Outreach and marketing officer with support from CoP and involving SAREP key staff. Engagement with stakeholders especially national government stakeholders to establish their needs Review to be completed in three months and new strategy developed and being implemented within six months Review by May 2013. New strategy developed and being implements and monitoring by August 2013 45 Alignment with OKACOM Share information with SADC FANR CoP and Integrated Resource Management Specialist Meetings with key FANR staff within three months then regular communication of SAREP activities Meetings to be held by May 2013. Subsequently SAREP reports to be circulated to FANR and meetings held if requested by SADC FANR. Creating links between high level structures and activities on the ground Continue to assist OKACOM with the development of sound, science-based information for informing key decisions on the management of the basin. COP & all SAREP Specialists & Technical Advisers, through the COP. Identify, together with OKACOM, key aspects related to the NAPs that require further investigation & then commission & supervise targeted research to answer key questions. This should be on￾going, but should start by July 2013 at the latest. At least 4 key technical issues related to the NAPs investigated and reported on by December 2013. Assist OKACOM to develop an influencing strategy for high-level decision-makers after due consultation with senior officials to address their specific challenges in obtaining the necessary attention of the key decision￾makers. Consultant, supervised by COP & Deputy COP. Should start by June 2013. Influencing strategy should be in place by September 2013. Identify key roles required of middle-level public servants to maintain the sustainability of initiatives started by SAREP & design a training/capacity building & mentorship program to develop the requisite skills & knowledge. Consultant, supervised by COP & Deputy COP in conjunction with key civil servants in each country (through workshop). This should start by May 2013 & be completed by December 2013. Identification of key roles by May 2013. Development of learning approach & materials by August & training started by October 2013. Through regular community-level meetings, SAREP should initiate a process for identifying major issues arising within communities on the ground that should be distilled & communicated to high￾SAREP Team, but coordinated through Regional Community Program Coordinator to the COP who will work with OKACOM to communicate main issues to appropriate decision-makers. September 2013. Framework for collecting information from communities on the ground by June 2013. First report to decision-makers by September 2013. 46 level decision-makers. Interaction between USAID regional and bilateral programs Improved communication between SAREP and bilateral programs in Angola, Botswana and Namibia USAID officials responsible for SAREP and the bilateral programs. SAREP CoP Agreed process to ensure better communication within three months Strategy for improved integration agreed by May 2013. Exchange of information on SAREP and bilateral programs Reporting on coordinating between SAREP and the bilateral programs SAREP management, planning and reporting procedures Establish Rundu office as a key location for SAREP activities CoP and Rundu office manager Develop and implement plan within three months Communications improved SAREP material available Meetings held at office SAREP staff days spent at office Investigate basing the CoP or DCoP in the Maun office USAID and CoP Decision made and relocation within three months Enhancements to workplan: distribution, geographic distribution of activities, high level financial information. CoP and DCoP Enhancements agreed with key stakeholders within three months and implemented in all subsequent workplans All future workplans include agreed enhancements Reporting enhancements: distribution, geographic distribution of activities, reporting against workplan, high level financial information. CoP and DCoP Enhancements agreed with key stakeholders within three months and implemented in all subsequent reports All future workplans include agreed enhancements 47 ANNEXES 48 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 56 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SOUTHERN AFRICA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA PROJECT TO BE EVALUATED Project Name: Southern Africa Regional Environmental Project (SAREP) Project Implementing Partner: Chemonics International Inc. Contract No: 674-C-10-00030-00 Agreement value (ceiling): $23,331,377.00 Start & End Date: 06/18/2010 – 06/17/2015 1. Objective The aim of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the Southern Africa Regional Environmental Project in Southern Africa Project managed by Chemonics International Inc. and its contribution to the USAID Southern Africa’s objectives. 2. Background USAID/Southern Africa addresses transboundary water and biodiversity management issues under an over-arching agreement signed with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) in 2006 and working in close collaboration with the multi-national Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM). All activities under this program are implemented by the Environment Team of the Regional General Development Office through the Southern Africa Regional Environmental Program (SAREP). The implementing mechanism for SAREP is a contract with Chemonics International, Inc., procured by USAID/Southern Africa and signed in June 2010. The SAREP project builds on previous USAID support through the Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) to initiatives of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) that integrate improved water and sanitation services with strategies that address threats to ecosystem services and biodiversity within priority shared river basins. SAREP also strengthens regional capacity to adapt and respond to effects of climate change and extends the reach of USAID programs addressing HIV/AIDS. The project is coordinated primarily by the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) and its technical advisory committee, the Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC). It is implemented in coordination with other donors supporting regional activities in the basin. SAREP’s overall objective is to support the SADC Water Vision statement of “equitable and sustainable utilization of water for social and environmental justice, regional integration and economic benefits for present and future generations” through building capacity for good water governance, supporting sound basin-level plans and priorities, and facilitating transboundary infrastructure and integrated land use planning. It will be secured for the long term by focusing on near￾term successes at the community level, and in important bio-diverse areas in the Okavango River Basin and the Caprivi section of the Zambezi River Basin. SAREP focuses primarily on the trans-boundary Okavango River Basin (ORB) and the Caprivi section of the Zambezi River Basin in Namibia. The Okavango River Basin, shared by Angola, Botswana, and Namibia, encompasses one of the world’s largest inland wetland ecosystems. It covers an area of about 413,550 km2 with a human population of about 960,000 (about 882,000 in the ORB and about 80,000 in the Caprivi region). Over the life of the program, it is expected that activities may expand to other basins or sub-basins in response to needs, opportunities, and synergies with other donors; comparative advantages of the parties; and available funding. The neighboring Luiana-Kwando sub-basin and associated eco-systems are among the areas targeted for potential future expansion. This sub-basin shares a landscape with, and interacts ecologically with the Okavango River basin. Activities there will build upon existing relationships and progress in the Angola-Namibia-Botswana frontier zones. The SAREP overall strategy rests on the primacy of benefits sharing, stakeholder participation, and aid effectiveness, as well as on the following general principles: 1. The Okavango Basin and regional counterparts in SADC — particularly OKACOM — are the “owners” of SAREP. Their leadership and commitment to the program are vital for its success and are an implementation priority. 2. SAREP activities must, in every case, strengthen the “shared resource, shared benefit” perspective among all stakeholders, regardless of culture or gender barriers. As a corollary, SAREP will demonstrate that stakeholders have more to gain from collaboration than from individual/independent actions. 3. International cooperating partners must act in concert on health and environmental goals in the targeted river basins. Leveraging each other’s resources, speaking with a single voice on consensus-conflict mitigation, and keeping aid effectiveness will be at the forefront of funding priorities. 4. SAREP activities will reflect a regional platform. They will transcend national boundaries, offer economies of scale to Southern Africa as a whole, and add value to bilateral programs. SAREP’s approach balances three key pillars: biodiversity, water supply and sanitation, and livelihoods. The approach is based on the premise that poverty and a lack of education are linked and generally seen to be indirect causes of limited livelihood strategies in marginalized rural communities. This leads to an over-reliance on, and over-harvesting of natural resources to meet basic human needs such as food and shelter, which together with poor health and a lack of access to clean potable water, result in pollution of the environment, a reduction in biodiversity, and degradation of ecosystems. SAREP Results Framework As shown in the Results Framework, the Program’s overall strategic objective is to support “strong regional and local capacity for integrated Okavango River Basin management and climate change adaptation leading to increased biodiversity conservation by, and improved overall welfare of, river basin communities.” Project key result areas flowing from this objective include:  Improved cooperation and management of shared river basins;  Biodiversity and ecosystem services monitored and protected;  Access to safe water supply and sanitation;  River basins managed in the context of global climate change;  Regional, national, and local development planning capacities around river basins (for land and water use, biodiversity conservation) strengthened. Key planned results as summarized from the Performance Management Plan to be assessed by this evaluation are:  Science-based systems supporting regional planning and water resource allocation;  More effective services being provided by institutions for basin-scale planning, biodiversity conservation, and water supply and sanitation;  Threats to biologically important areas identified, monitored, and addressed;  Communities participating and engaged in confronting critical threats to biodiversity while improving their welfare;  Resources leveraged for sustainable management and conservation of important biologically diverse areas;  River basin communities have improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation through appropriate planning, building, financing, and operation of infrastructure;  Resources leveraged for dissemination and replication of safe drinking water and sanitation;  Conflicts over shared resources avoided and mitigated through regional collaboration mechanisms;  Tools, procedures, and expertise in place to manage climate-caused crises such as floods, droughts, and fires;  Investments increased in water supply and sanitation and biodiversity conservation;  Development plans measure progress toward Millennium Development Goals (numbers 1, 6, and 7);  More people informed about and have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the project over the first two years has been to establish a full collaborative partnership with OKACOM and its Member States, and to put in place an effective implementing structure of staff, local partners, field offices, and technical collaborators throughout the Okavango Basin for the achievement of results. The enormity of this task cannot be overestimated in the face of severe institutional headwinds, capacity constraints, and logistical challenges. With this firm foundation, a number of key results have been able to be achieved to date. Milestones achieved in terms of support to management of shared river basins include the completion of National Action Plans that specify how the overall OKACOM Strategic Action Plan will be implemented in each of three OKACOM countries. OKACOM’s key Biodiversity Task Force has been reinvigorated and is actively engaged with SAREP in implementing an ambitious agenda based on the OKACOM Strategic Action Plan. A user-friendly, GIS-based decision support tool has been developed and preliminarily endorsed by the OKACOM technical committee, with user training scheduled to be rolled out in each country in the near future. Achievements in the biodiversity component include the completion of a comprehensive Preliminary Biodiversity Threat Assessment and related Ecosystems Health Rapid Assessment that provide baseline information on the nature, magnitude, and location of biodiversity threats in the Okavango River Basin. A major milestone for the project’s work in Angola was the signing of an MOU with the Ministry of Environment outlining the protocols for collaboration between SAREP and the Government of Angola (GoA). This agreement in turn provided the footing for SAREP to complete a series of biodiversity threat workshops and to initiate a series of ground-breaking biodiversity surveys in the little-studied Angolan portion of the Basin. In Botswana, SAREP has supported the development of a Strategic Environmental Analysis which will provide ecological thresholds for development of the Okavango Delta region. These thresholds will be a key tool for the Botswana Department of Environmental Affairs to improve the management of the Delta, which is a Ramsar site. The Water Supply and Sanitation component first gained traction in the Kavango region of Namibia, where the introduction of a user-managed water quality management model gained full endorsement of government and has already been successfully replicated in additional communities without SAREP support. Building on this base, SAREP is collaborating with the Namibian government and other partners to jointly improve water supplies for up to 20,000 people in four rural communities in the Kavango region. In Angola, collaboration with provincial and national government officials has produced a draft strategy for SAREP WSS interventions and an assessment tool for evaluating and prioritizing rural water supply schemes for available rehabilitation funds. In addition, SAREP is working with the municipality of Menongue to support the upgrading of the town’s water purification plant to double its current capacity of providing potable water from 10,000 to over 20,000 residents. Significant issues identified to date include:  Delayed implementation of field activities due to a number of factors including protracted project endorsement and work plan approval process with OKACOM, and complex negotiations with local NGO implementing partners;  Logistical challenges related to working on the ground in remote communities in three countries, one of which has recently emerged from 30 years of civil war;  Challenges to integration of project components due in large part to traditional stove piping of both USG and host country government programs and systems;  Capacity constraints among host governments, partner institutions, and beneficiary communities that give rise to tensions between project goals for local and regional ownership and contractual performance timelines. 3. Statement of Work This final evaluation report produced by the successful offer shall: 1) use evidence to document the degree to which USAID-funded environmental project interventions through Chemonics Inc. worked, or did not work; 2) Identify best practices, lessons learned, and areas of improvement; and 3) provide recommendations to inform USAID’s follow-on interventions toward improved management of the Okavango river basin, with emphasis on institutional strengthening, biodiversity conservation, water and sanitation, and climate change adaptability, and assess what will be required to achieve existing strategic goals and results. The evaluation will address the following key questions under three key themes related to project’s results, management, and promising practices: 1. Results a) To what extent is the SAREP Project likely to be successful in achieving results toward its stated objectives? b) What have been the key drivers of and limitations on performance to date? c) To what extent the project has made progress toward improving the effectiveness and sustainability of OKACOM and related organizations that affect river basin management? 2. Management a) To what extent has the management structure as implemented supported, or hindered, performance? 3. Promising Practices a) Based on the findings and analysis of the preceding questions, what are the key strategic, programmatic, technical, and managerial features of the project that should be taken into account when implementing new trans￾boundary environmental management initiatives in the region? Offerers shall develop innovative approaches to conduct this evaluation, using the attached scope of work for the SAREP Project using the USAID evaluation Policy (http://transition.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf) and any other relevant information. Evaluation teams should prepare to travel to several communities to conduct the evaluation. [End of Section C - Statement of Work] 49 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Specific activities to achieve project objectives In this Section we detail the activities for each phase of the assignment by sub-dividing each Phase into a series of activities. In developing this methodology we have taken cognisance of the USAID Evaluation Policy in as far as it is relevant to this assignment. Inception phase The Inception Phase is a period of intensive consultation and planning, in close collaboration with USAID and the project. The inception period is essential to ensuring that the project builds on that which has gone before and maintains the momentum of reforms already initiated. It also provides an opportunity for all stakeholders, as well as the project team, to reflect on the developments to date and, if necessary, propose adjustments to the planned activities and work plan to take account of progress since the preparation of the Statement of Work. Proposed Activities Activity IP1: Mobilisation of Experts The team will be deployed on Day 1 of the project, together with project administrative and support staff. Such immediate deployment is possible due to the fact that all team members and DNA are based in South Africa. Activity IP2: Establishment of Project Systems and Infrastructure The Inception period will also be used to set-up our project management and quality assurance processes. These will cover the overall management of the project, including contracting procedures, invoicing, time recording, progress recording and monitoring and budgetary management. In addition quality assurance processes for the activities will be set-up. All of these systems and processes are already being successfully used in other projects and our office staff have been trained in their use. Activity IP3: Initial briefing with USAID As early as possible in the Inception Phase the Project Director and Team Leader will have a briefing meeting with USAID. The main purpose of this meeting is to ensure a common understanding of the objectives, outputs, methods and timing of the project. Guidance on the assignment will be sought from USAID together with any advice on specific tools or methods to be used. We will also seek information at this briefing on key documents to review and key stakeholders to engage with. Activity IP4: Finalisation of evaluation questions and constituent methods Precise questions that the evaluation will seek to answer must be established. Sub-evaluation questions will be developed based on the teams’ experience, the statement of work and other documents obtained from USAID during the initial briefing. Once the evaluation questions are established we will identify the evidence that will be required to answer these questions and also the possible sources of this evidence. Any further indicators that are required beyond those in the programmes performance metrics will also be established at this stage. Details on the evaluation questions and constituent methods will be included in the Inceptions Report for endorsement by USAID. Activity IP5: Detailed Work Plan and Calendar of Activities Given the brief delay in the award of this contract, uncertainty over the timing of project and field visits, and the coming (and extensive) end-of-year holidays in Southern Africa, the work plan previously submitted will need to be substantially revised in consultation with USAID and the project team. A detailed work plan and calendar of activities will therefore be developed during the Inception period. This will include: • The timing of tasks, activities and sub activities; • The duration of each task; • The interaction between tasks (dependent tasks are linked); • The reporting and output milestones; and • The key performance indicators. The final work plan and timetable will then be submitted to USAID for approval. Any subsequent revisions to the work plan or timetable will also be approved in advance by USAID. Activity IP6: Inception Report (IR) An Inception Report will be prepared by the end of week 2. The IR will incorporate the working methodology and work schedules for the project. This will include a description of the methods to be used during implementation, a deployment schedule for experts, a detailed timetable and a critical path analysis. The draft IR will be submitted to USAID and a presentation (if requested) will be made to highlight its key points. Following the presentation, and after receiving comments, the IR will be finalised. The IR will then again be submitted to USAID for final approval. Inception Phase Outputs, Performance Indicators and Deadlines The Table below shows the activities and sub-activities to be implemented, the outputs and deliverables that will result from them and the date by which they will be achieved. Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity IP1 Mobilisation of Experts and establishment of Project Infrastructure Team deployed on day one. 1 Activity IP2 Establishment of Project Systems Infrastructure Existing office support staff in DNA office in South Africa have set-up project management and quality assurance systems for project. 1 Activity IP3 Initial briefing with USAID Common understanding of the objectives, outputs, methods and timing of the project 1 Activity IP4 Evaluation questions and constituent methods Questions, evidence base and source, additional indicators endorsed by USAID 1 Activity IP5 Detailed Work Plan and Calendar of Activities Detailed work plan and timetable covering whole period of implementation is produced for IR 2 Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity IP6 Preparation of Inception Report Inception Report 2 Activity IP6 Submission of Inception Report Inception Report approved 2 Phase 1: Document / Literature review The purpose of this phase of the evaluation is to review available documentation. This phase will commence as soon as the contract is signed and will continue until early January 2013; further document review will be carried out during the analysis phase as required. Proposed activities Activity DRP1: Identification of documents The initial briefing with USAID will be used to identify the key documents to be reviewed. These documents are likely to include the original project design documents, the proposal from Chemonics, workplans, quarterly progress reports, terms of reference for and reports from short￾term consultants, any special reports that have been produced, and any previous evaluations. Activity DRP2: Review of documents The documents identified under Activity DRP1 will be collected and reviewed. Activity DRP3: Documentation of findings based on document review The preliminary findings of the review will be documented against the evaluation questions Activity DRP4: Document database A database of all documents reviewed will be prepared and as far as possible all documents will be made available electronically. This database will form the basis of the bibliography annex to the evaluation report. Phase 1 Outputs, Performance Indicators and Deadlines The Table below shows the activities and sub-activities to be implemented, the outputs and deliverables that will result from them and the date by which they will be achieved. Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity DRP 1 Identify documents to be reviewed List of documents to be reviewed 1 Activity DRP 2 Gather and review of documents Completed Review. 5 Activity DRP 3 Documentation of findings based on document review Findings documented against evaluation questions 6 Activity DRP 4 Preparation of document database Document data base annex for Evaluation Report. 6 Phase 2: Stakeholder Consultation The purpose of this phase will be to confirm the findings of the previous phase and also to collect additional primary data. As far as possible this phase will be carried out in parallel with the document review phase and will be completed by end-January 2013; further stakeholder consultation will be carried out during the analysis phase as required. Proposed activities Activity SCP1: Identification of stakeholders The initial discussions with USAID will be used to identify the stakeholders to be consulted. Key amongst these will be OKACOM and OBSC. Other key stakeholders that have been identified at this stage include: • Government of Angola. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and Water • Government of Botswana. Department of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources. • Government of Namibia. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. • The rural communities on the Kavango region of Namibia that have benefited from water supply and sanitation interventions • The municipality of Menongue in Angola • The SADC Secretariat and specifically the SADC Water Division. • International cooperating partners particularly GIZ, SIDA and the GEF-UNDP • University of Botswana’s Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre • The Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area • NGOs such as Birdlife Botswana, the Kalahari Conservation Society (Botswana), Namibia Nature Foundation, and Association of Environmental Conservation and Integrated Rural Development (Angola). • Research Institutes such as the Desert Research Foundation of Namibia Activity SCP2: Development of questionnaires The questionnaire will be based on the evaluation questions. Whilst the questionnaires will seek common information they will be adapted as appropriate for the different groups of stakeholders Activity SCP3: Consultation with stakeholders As far as possible these will be semi-structured face to face meetings with either individuals or focus groups. Where this is not possible telephone interviews will be used or electronic responses sought. As early as possible in 2013 we would visit the project staff and OKACOM in Maun, Botswana for a number of days. We also hope to be able to speak with representatives from OBSC at this time. Visits to communities and other stakeholders in Angola, Botswana and Namibia will also take place in January 2013. We envisage undertaking visits to identified communities in both Botswana and Namibia directly from Maun, but a separate visit will need to be arranged to visit communities in Menongue in Angola. The team will also meet with government officials and other key stakeholders from civil society and international organisations in Luanda, Gaborone and Windhoek. Specifically, the project budget and work plan provides for the following visits: • Maun – 1 trip of 2 people for 7 days (project visit and fieldwork) • Windhoek – 1 trip of 2 people for 2 days (consultations) • Gaborone – 1 trip of 2 people for 2 days (consultations) • Luanda – 1 trip of 2 people for 2 days (consultations) • Menongue – 1 trip of 2 people for 3 days (fieldwork) We will seek to arrange these meetings as soon as the contract is awarded in an attempt to ensure the maximum participation of stakeholders, Activity SCP4: Documentation of findings based on stakeholder consultation The preliminary findings of the stakeholder consultations will be documented against the evaluation questions. Activity SCP5: Stakeholder database A database of all stakeholders consulted will be prepared; this will include all contact details. This will form the basis of the interview / stakeholder engagement annex for the Evaluation Report. Phase Outputs, Performance Indicators and Deadlines The Table below shows the activities and sub-activities to be implemented, the outputs and deliverables that will result from them and the date by which they will be achieved. Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity SCP1 Establish stakeholder consultation list and matrix List and matrix. 1 Activity SCP2 Development of questionnaires based on evaluation questions Questionnaire appropriate for different stakeholders 1 Activity SCP 3 Visit project staff and OKACOM in Maun, Botswana Qualitative , key informant data obtained and assembled and cross referenced with Quantitative data. 5 Activity SCP 3 Visit selected stakeholders with semi structured/open ended questionnaires. Qualitative , key informant data obtained and assembled and cross referenced with Quantitative data. 6-7 Activity SCP 4 Documentation of the data and findings from respective sources. Findings of stakeholder engagement documented against evaluation questions. 8 Activity SCP 5 Compile stakeholder database Interview / stakeholder engagement annex for Evaluation Report 8 Phase 3: Analysis After the completion of the information collection phases we will proceed with the analysis phase. The focus of the analysis phase will be: - Establishing the answers to the Evaluation Questions; - Assessing the contribution of the programme to the SADC Vision; - Analysing progress against the SAREP strategic objective, the projects five key result areas and the twelve key planned results that fall under these result areas; - Assessing the availability of baseline data against which progress can be assessed; - Establishing progress against the programmes performance metrics; - Disaggregating findings so that the outcomes and impacts on males and females can be identified and assessed; - Evaluating the extent to which disadvantaged and vulnerable groups are benefitting from SAREP; - Triangulating results of different data sources and research methods employed; - Assessing any delays in implementation that have occurred and as far as is possible the reasons for these delays; - Reflecting on the evaluation methodology so as to identify any constraints that it posed and any gaps. This would include the identification of any technical and administrative issues that have arisen during the implementation of the assignment; - Assessing both the quantity and quality of the evidence base on which the evaluation is based; - Evaluating the establishment and use of decision support systems such as the Management Orientated Monitoring System (MOMS) and the GIS based data management system that is linked to MOMS; - Identifying action-orientated, practical and specific recommendations for both the SAREP programme and for the wider activities of USAID in the Southern Africa region and beyond; - Developing lessons and establishing the key messages for USAID, the project, OKACOM and other stakeholders; and - Establishing key implications beyond the planned term of the current project. Proposed activities The analysis phase will commence with a meeting of the project team at which the detailed analysis methodology and distribution of analysis tasks will be finalised. Discussion will also cover the relative weight to be given to the respective sections in the Evaluation Reports, and any omissions and additions deemed desirable. The analysis will then be undertaken. During this time additional documentation may be sought and reviewed and additional consultation with stakeholders will be undertaken as necessary. This additional data collection will be used to verify findings and also to fill any gaps that are identified. The analysis phase will also include the presentation to USAID at which the draft findings and recommendations will be presented and comments sought. We anticipate that this workshop will take place in the last week of January 2013. Phase Outputs, Performance Indicators and Deadlines The Table below shows the activities and sub-activities to be implemented, the outputs and deliverables that will result from them and the date by which they will be achieved. Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity AP1 Team meeting Finalisation of analysis methodology and distribution of tasks 8 Activity AP 2 Undertake additional document collation and consultation where applicable to fill gaps in data and analysis Comprehensive data base and stakeholder perspectives completed for final analysis. 9 Activity AP 3 Undertake the analysis as per the details covered above Draft findings and recommendations. 9 Activity AP 4 Presentation of draft findings to USAID Workshop draft findings with USAID to receive comments and observations that can be incorporated into the Evaluation Report. 9 Phase 4: Reporting In parallel with the analysis phase the draft evaluation report will be prepared. The draft evaluation report will be submitted by 8 February 2013. Following the presentation and comments from USAID, which we hope to receive within 10 working days, the Evaluation Report will be finalised and submitted. During the course of the evaluation brief progress reports will be prepared weekly. These will describe progress and identify any problems that have been encountered. Phase Outputs, Performance Indicators and Deadlines The Table below shows the activities and sub-activities to be implemented, the outputs and deliverables that will result from them and the date by which they will be achieved. Activity Output/Deliverable By Week Activity RP 1 Preparation of draft evaluation report Draft report prepared 8 Activity RP1 Submission of Draft evaluation report Comments on report 9 Activity RP 2 Comments from USAID Comments absorbed for inclusion in report. 11 Activity RP 3 Compilation and edit of Final Evaluation Report Final report presented. 11 Activity RP3 Submission of Final Evaluation Report 12 50 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 1 QUESTIONAIRE FOR PROGRAM TEAM PMU Background information: Name of area Name of respondents Position of respondent Venue Date Management: Program design and structure – relevance and efficiency 1.Is the program well designed to reach the desired results? How could the design of the program have been improved? 2. Is the program focused enough or too broad? 3. What are the advantages & disadvantages of the program institutional structure? Internal coordination and reporting – efficiency 4. What are the formal internal coordination mechanisms? 2 5. Have the internal coordination mechanisms worked well? 6. How could the internal coordination be improved? 7. What are the challenges with producing good quality workplans on time? What can be done about the challenges? 8. What are the challenges with producing good quality reports on time? 9. Is the M&E system good enough for adaptive management? 10. Are there examples of adaptive management changes resulting from information from the M&E system? 11. Have the research documents produced been of good quality? 3 12. Have the research documents been useful in addressing key program issues? Give examples. Finance and accounting – efficiency 13. Have there been challenges related to the timely distribution of program implementation funds? 14. Have financial and audit reports been produced on time? 15. What are the challenges with financial reporting? 16. Are there records of spend that reflect program management costs versus delivery? Outreach – relevance and efficiency 17. Who does SAREP belong to? 18. Do the country representatives play an active supporting role to SAREP? 4 19. Do people read the reports? 20.Do local communities and local government play an active role in SAREP? 21. What external relations has SAREP built beyond the basin? 22. Has SAREP contributed to transboundary water & environmental management beyond the basin? 23. What are the communication challenges faced by SAREP? 24. What are the linkages with other initiatives and how have these helped the program achieve its objectives? Results KRA 1. Cooperative management of targeted shared river basins improved 25. Has the information supplied by SAREP been used for regional planning & water resource allocation? 5 26. Are you happy with the quality of the scientific reports of the project? 27. What examples are there of improved planning (in biodiversity & WAS) in the basin? KRA 2. Biodiversity and ecosystem services monitored and protected 28. What are the biologically important areas of the basin? 29. What are the major threats to biologically important areas? 30. Has the program thus far addressed environmental threats to the basin well? What are the examples of this? 32. Is SAREP satisfied with the level of local community participation? What challenges? 33. How can local community participation be improved? 6 34. Is the link between the CBNRM & livelihoods projects and the Program objectives clear? What evidence? 35. What additional resources for conservation management within the basin have been leveraged through SAREP? Where is the evidence of this? KRA 3. Access to safe water supply and sanitation increased 36. What are the examples of improved access to drinking water & sanitation? How many? 37. What funds, if any, have been mobilised for water and sanitation services? KRA 4. Targeted river basins resources managed in the Context of Global Climate Change (GCC) 38. Are there examples of agreements between the countries of the basin that deal with sharing natural resources? 39. How has (will) the project contributed to addressing CC at basin-wide & regional level? 40. Has SAREP addressed conflicts over natural resource management? 7 41. What potential conflicts over natural resources are anticipated by SAREP? 42. How has CC been mainstreamed into the program? 43. What plans exist in the basin for natural crisis (disaster) management response? 44. What specific tools have been developed for natural crisis (disaster) response? 45. What gaps exist with regard to natural crises response ability? 46. What is the program’s working definition of ‘sustainability’ for the basin? 47. Has a CC vulnerability assessment been completed for the basin? 48. What plans are there for building CC resilience under SAREP or within Okacom? KRA 5 Regional, national, and local development planning capacities around river basins (for land and water use, biodiversity conservation) strengthened 49. Do you track progress against the MDGs? 8 50. Has the HIV/AIDS component of the program been successful? Who defines local HIV needs in your communities areas? Sustainability: Institutional sustainability (including capacity) 51. What elements of SAREP are likely to remain sustainable after prog closure? 52. What can be done to improve chances of sustainability of the initiatives? 53. Has the SAREP team consciously passed on skills and capacity with a view to sustainability? What examples? 54. Which skills are still lacking for sustainability? 55. Which institutions will act as the repository of knowledge gained through SAREP? 56. How will the knowledge gained through SAREP be communicated to local communities in the future? 9 57. What key SAREP activities will need to continue when the program closes? 58. Where could the money come from to support these activities? 59. Are the projects established under SAREP internally financially viable? Social sustainability 60. Who will address conflicts arising from access to and use of natural resources after SAREP closes? 61. How will fair access to natural resources be ensured after SAREP closes? Have there been differential benefits from the program. Have the most vulnerable and poorest benefited? Environmental sustainability 62. Will the agreements about natural resource management be honoured after the closure of SAREP? Why? 10 63. Who will support the maintenance of agreements about natural resource management when SAREP closes? 64. Is there enough sound and clear benefit to the parties to the natural resource management agreements to maintain them after SAREP closure? Do resources remain less impacted and are they more sustainably used than before the program? Lessons & Recommendations: Best practices Can you identify any best (or poor) planning and prioritisation practices? Can you identify any best (or poor) technical practices? Can you identify any best (or poor) management practices? Can you identify any best (or poor) management practices? Can you identify any best (or poor) financial practices? 11 Lessons learnt Can you identify any lessons in terms of design? Can you identify any lessons in terms of programming / planning? Can you identify any lessons in terms of technical implementation? Can you identify any lessons in terms of management structure or style? Can you identify any lessons in terms of financial management? Areas of improvements / Recommendations for SAREP Should the focus of activities change and if so how? Can the prioritisation of activities be improved? Should there is any changes in the technical approach? 12 Can the management structure be improved? Can the management style be improved? Would you suggest any changes in financial management? Recommendations USAID Are there any key strategic features of the program that should be taken into account in the design of new programs? Are there any key programmatic features of the program that should be taken into account in the design of new programs? Are there any key technical features of the program that should be taken into account in the design of new programs? Are there any key management features of the program that should be taken into account in the design of new programs? OTHER OBSERVATIONS 51 ANNEX IV: SOURCES OF INFORMATION Stakeholders consulted Name Position Date Location Steve Johnson SAREP CoP 11/1, 17/1 and 18/1, 28/1 and 29/1, 15/2 Jo’burg and Pretoria, South Africa. Gaborone, Botswana Brian App SAREP Deputy CoP 11/1, 17/1 and 18/1, 28/1 and 29/1, 15/2 Jo’burg and Pretoria, South Africa. Gaborone, Botswana USAID kick-off meeting Geoff Borns (Regional Director for Southern Africa), Doreen Robinson, Lisa Campbell, Steve Horn, Erik Pacific +++ 16/1 Pretoria, South Africa Steve Horn Regional Environment Programme Manager, USAID/Southern Africa, Botswana 16/1, 28/1 and 29/1, 25/2 Pretoria, South Africa Gaborone, Botswana Doreen Robinson Regional Environment Officer, USAID/Southern Africa, South Africa 16/1, 23/1, 25/2 Pretoria, South Africa Dovas Saults Regional Environment, Science, Technology and Health Officer, US Embassy, Gaborone, Botswana 28/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Michael Murphy Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy, Gaborone, Botswana 28/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Mike Barclay Operations Director, Bergstan, Gaborone, Botswana 28/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Kalaote Kalaote OBSC and Water Resources task team member. Principle Engineer. Dept of Water Affairs, Botswana 29/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Jorge Joaquim SAREP. Admin assistant / translator 29/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Felix Monggae Chairperson, Kalahari Conservation Society 29/1/13 Gaborone, Botswana Geofrey Khwarae SAREP. Outreach and Technical Coordinator 30/1/13 Maun, Botswana Thokomelo Phuthego SAREP. Botswana Activity Manager 30/1/13 and 4 to 6/2 Maun, Botswana. Travelling to Shakawe Belda Mosepele SAREP. M&E Specialist 30/1/13 Maun, Botswana Alexis Kanter SAREP. HIV/AIDS and volunteer coordinator 30/1/13 Maun, Botswana Chandida Monyadzwe SAREP. Regional Community Programme Coordinator 30/1/13 and 1/2/13 Maun, Botswana Sekgowa Motsumi ODSC and biodiversity task team member. Dept of Environmental Affairs, Botswana 31/1/13 Maun, Botswana Ebenezario Chonguica Executive Secretary, OKACOM 31/1/13 Maun, Botswana Bigani Setume Botswana Tourism Organisation 31/1/13 Maun, Botswana Chris Brooks SAREP. Integrated Resource Management Specialist 31/1 and 1/2/13 Maun, Botswana Naledi Pema Deputy Secretary T? Land Board 1/2/13 Maun, Botswana Lake Ngami Conservation Trust See attached details 1/2/13 Sehithwa, Botswana Gomolemo Mokete SAREP. WSS activity manager 4/2/13 Travelling to Gumare Gumare PILUMP Committee Mr Saaza – Chair, Mr Nkhwa, Ms Ditshvpek. In total committee has 14 members including 8 chiefs. More than 20 at meeting. 4/2/13 Gumare, Botswana Moalafhi Mosemela and Lordick Mokobi Deputy Head Master and Teacher respectively, Okavango Secondary School, Gumare. 4/2/13 Gumare, Botswana Gosalamang Xaa and Omphemetse Boitshwarelo Tubu Green Unit. 4/2/13 Gumare, Botswana Galeitsare Difongo Manager, Ngwao Boswa 4/2/13 Gumare, Botswana Ishmael Mkhwa KCS extension worker, Gumare 4/2/13 Gumare, Botswana Tshiamo Lekgoa KCS extension worker, Eastern panhandle 5/2/13 Eastern panhandle, Botswana Joel Keromang KCS extension worker, Shakawe 5/2/13 Shakawe, Botswana Shakawe Vision Committee See attached details 5/2/13 Shakawe, Botswana Galefile Maokeng Trust for Okavango Cultural and Development Initiatives. 5/2/13 Shakawe, Botswana Willemien le Roux Pabalelo Trust. 6/2/13 Shakawe, Botswana Robyn Thomkins SAREP. Water and Sanitation Supply Coordinator. 6/2/13 to 8/2/13 Namibia Mark and Charlie Paxton. OKBMC Biodiversity Group Coordinator, Namibia 6/2/13 Shamvura, Namibia Pelgrina Nangura Shigweda Chair Karutai Water point committee. 6/2/13 Karutai, Namibia Muhembo Evanslus Foreman Karutai Community Water Project 6/2/13 Karutai, Namibia Antonio Chipita SAREP Activity Manager, Menongue 6/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Representatives from Angolan communities See attached details 7/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Moses Mpereki DWSSC, MAWF, Rundu 7/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Reinhold Kambull Support officer, OKBMC 7/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Dorothy Wamunyima SAREP Activity Manager, Rundu 7/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Aaron Muti NamWater, Rundu 7/2/13 Rundu, Namibia Friedrich Alpers SAREP. Caprivi coordinator, Namibia 8/2/13 to 10/2/13 Caprivi, Namibia Bennety Bisho IRDNC, Caprivi, Namibia 8/2/13 Myuni Conservancy, Namibia Community animal guards Myuni Conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia 8/2/13 Myuni Conservancy, Namibia Obby Lafumbela, Robert Lyonga, Davies Chelezo. Mashi Conservancy 8/2/13 Mashi Conservancy, Namibia Un-named farmer Mashi conservancy 8/2/13 Mashi Comservancy, Namibia Bevin Munali IRDNC, Caprivi, Namibia 8/2/13 and 9/2/13 Caprivi, Namibia Janet Matota IRDNC, Caprivi, Namibia 8/2/13 and 9/2/13 Caprivi, Namibia Chief Myuni Myuni Conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia 9/2/13 Caprivi, Namibia Staff member + Janet Matota Mashi Crafts 9/2/13 Mashi, Namibia Alan Homella, Justice Muhinda IRDNC, Caprivi, Namibia 9/2/13 Katima, Namibia James Maiba, IRDNC. Cephas Lilungwe, Enterprise Office. Alex Kaela, Area representative Malindi Sikunga Conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia 10/2/13 Sikunga, Namibia Elzadia Washington USAID, Namibia 10/2/13 and 13/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Mary Seely Desert Research Federation Namibia 10/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Rodney Amster Technical Advisor, DWSSC, MAWF 10/2/13 to 13/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Laura Namene Chief Water Quality Specialist: Namibia Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry. OBSC Member 11/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Pauline Mufeti Chief Hydrologist,Namibia Ministry of Agri water and Forestry. OBSC member 11/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Cliff Oliver Manager Northern Region Namibia, NamWater Head Office 11/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Julian Fennessy NNF 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Karin Nuulimba IRDNC 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Martin Neumann Manager, Namibian Water Resources Management Project 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Ms Theopolina Nantanga Dep Director Community Based Management and Training. MAWF, Namibia 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Philip Ushona Development Planner, MAWF, Namibia 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Ben Freyer Dep Director Regional Support Services. MAWF, Namibia 12/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Abraham Nehemia Under Sec, MAWF. Namibia OKACOM Commissioner 13/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Wanda Nesbitt US Ambassador, Namibia 13/2/13 Windhoek, Namibia Hilma Eiki SAREP, SAF Coordinator 15/2/13 Gaborone, Botswana Phera Ramoeli Senior Programme Officer, SADC Water Division 15/2/13 Gaborone, Botswana Thomas Schild Transboundary Water Management in SADC, GIZ 15/2/13 Gaborone, Botswana Portia Segomelo Director, Botswana Department of Environmental Affairs. OKACOM Commissioner 15/2/13 Gaborone, Botswana Tracy Molefi National Coordinator, RBOs, International Waters Unit, Botswana Ministry of Energy, Minerals and Water Resources. OBSC member 15/2/13 Gaborone, Botswana Katarina Perrolf Senior Programme Manager Water Resources, SIDA 22/2/13 By phone USAID presentation of draft report Geoff Borns (Regional Director for Southern Africa), Doreen Robinson, Steve Horn, Erik Pacific +++ 25/2/13 Pretoria, South Africa Robert Brookes and Erin Owens SAREP Project Director and Project Manager, Chemonics International, Washington 25/2/13 By phone Jose Neto SAREP representative, Luanda 26/2 to 1/3 Luanda, Angola Paula Francisco MINAMB – Secretary of State for the Environment, Angola 27/2/13 Luanda, Angola Carlos Andrade Technical Officer, Angola Ministry of Energy and Water. OBSC member 28/2/13 Luanda, Angola Filomena Velho and Bomba Bazika Sangolay Inland Fisheries, Fisheries Institute, Angola 28/2/13 Luanda, Angola Gastao Lukangu Agriculture and Business Advisor, USAID, Angola 28/2/13 Luanda, Angola Marta Alexandre MINAMB – Focal point in Angola Ministry of Environment for SAREP. OKACOM biodiversity task team member. Future OBSC member 1/3/13 Luanda, Angola --t Lista nominal dos membros de ACADIR que transitam de K.a;ay, para vizinha Republica da Namibia para um seminario. 1 -Manecas Domingos Evaristo 2-Loid Ngombe 3-Lotina Masseka 4-Gernanda Nguia 5-Francisco Falata 6-Simao Pedro 7-Adolfo Raul $assinda 8-Jose Likuwa 9-Matias KanYanga nt , , 10-Maria vihemba Ul,/'q ' 1 1-Marcelino Mukuve Rbgedor 12-Sara KahYata L 13-Fatima Chimbi ACADIR KALAI aos 06/02t2013 Oficiat do camPo Usona David Kawika DOCUMENTS OBTAINED SAREP Contract Materials and Work Plans 1. SAREP - Organizational Chart 2. SAREP – SOW/ Performance Statement 3. SAREP - Namibia Buy-In SOW 4. SAREP - Results Framework 5. SAREP - Inception Workshop Report 6. SAREP - Project Work Plans • Year 1 and Life of Project • Year 2 • Year 3 7. Maps • Cubango-Okavango River Basis – Upper • Cubango-Okavango River Basis – Lower • SAREP Activity Sites – Upper Angola • SAREP Activity Sites – Lower Angola, Botswana and Namibia SAREP Progress Reports 1. Annual reports • FY 2011 • FY 2012 2. Semi annual reports • FY 2011 Pt. 1 • FY 2011 Pt. 2 • FY 2012 Pt. 1 3. Quarterly reports • FY 2010 Q4 • FY 2011 Q1 • FY 2011 Q2 • FY 2011 Q3 • FY 2011 Q4 • FY 2012 Q1 • FY 2012 Q2 • FY 2012 Q3 • FY 2012 Q4 • FY 2013 Q1 4. Monthly status updates • January 2013 5. SAMPLE PARTNER PROGRESS REPORT • ACADIR – FY 2012 Q4 • IRDNC – FY 2012 Q4 • KCS – FY 2012 Q4 • IRBM – Final Report (Prior USAID Program) SAREP Technical Reports 1. OKACOM – National Action Plans (NAP) • OKACOM - NAP Angola • OKACOM - NAP Botswana • OKACOM - NAP Namibia 2. Cubango-Okavango River Basin (CORB) Reports • CORB Environmental Health Assessment • Okavango Delta Management Plan Review • Okavango Delta Ramsar Site Strategic Environmental Assessment 3. Caprivi Reports and Materials • Mashi Conservancy WSS and Flood Plan • Wuparo booklet • Kasika poster 4. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 5. SAREP Fact sheets 6. OKACOM – River cousins 7. SAREP – Project Brochure 8. HIV / AIDs workplan summary Technical documents from USAID 1. Mid-term programmatic evaluation of USAID/Southern Africa’s program to “improve management of shared river basins” 2. USAID Southern Africa. Regional Development Co-operation Strategy. 2011-2016. 3. SAREP RFP 4. SAREP Statement of work Evaluation guidelines from USAID 1. Checklist for assessing USAID Evaluation Reports 2. How to Note. Preparing evaluation reports 3. Performance M&E TIPS. Baselines and Targets 4. Performance M&E TIPS. Conducting data quality assessments 5. Performance M&E TIPS. Conducting key informant interviews 6. Performance M&E TIPS. Conducting mixed method evaluations 7. Performance M&E TIPS. Constructing and evaluation report 8. Performance M&E TIPS. Data quality standards 9. Performance M&E TIPS. Selecting performance indicators 10. Performance M&E TIPS. Using direct observation techniques 11. Performance M&E TIPS. Using rapid appraisal methods 12. USAID. Evaluation report template Documents from SIDA 1. Three Year Plan for the Consolidation and Operations of the OKACOM Secretariat: Completion Report. May 2012 2. OKASEC Institutional Functional Analysis. Draft Final Report. February 2012. 3. Proposal for Sida Support to implementation of OKACOM’s Five Year Plan 2012 – 2017 for Institutional and Organizational Capacity Development Phase II. July 2012 HIV / AIDs source documents 1. Angola. http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/knowyourresponse/countryprogressreports/2012co untries/ce_AO_Narrative_Report[1].pdf 2. Botswana http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/knowyourresponse/countryprogressreports/2012co untries/ce_BW_Narrative_Report[1].pdf 3. Botswana National Strategic Framework http://www.bbca.org.bw/Botswana%20Nat%20Strat%20Fram%202010.pdf 4. Namibia http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/knowyourresponse/countryprogressreports/2012co untries/ce_NA_Narrative_Report[1].pdf 5. Factors Fuelling the HIV/AIDS Pandemic in Africa’s Rural Communities, R Agunga, R Sundarajan Ohio Agricultural Research& Development Center, The Ohio State University USA. http://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/217/Agunga%2011.3-9.pdf Other documents 1. OKBMC annual work plan 2012-2013. Activity and travel schedule Date Day Country Location Activity 11 January 2013 Friday South Africa Jo'burg Meeting 12 January 2013 Saturday 13 January 2013 Sunday 14 January 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria Mobilising 15 January 2013 Tuesday South Africa Pretoria Mobilising 16 January 2013 Wednesday South Africa Pretoria USAID presentation 17 January 2013 Thursday South Africa Pretoria Workshop 18 January 2013 Friday South Africa Pretoria Workshop 19 January 2013 Saturday 20 January 2013 Sunday 21 January 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria Inception Phase 22 January 2013 Tuesday South Africa Pretoria Inception Phase 23 January 2013 Wednesday South Africa Pretoria Interviews 24 January 2013 Thursday South Africa Pretoria Inception Phase 25 January 2013 Friday South Africa Pretoria Inception Phase 26 January 2013 Saturday 27 January 2013 Sunday 28 January 2013 Monday Botswana Gaborone Interviews 29 January 2013 Tuesday Botswana Gaborone Interviews 30 January 2013 Wednesday Botswana Gaborone / Maun Interviews 31 January 2013 Thursday Botswana Maun Interviews 01 February 2013 Friday Botswana Maun & Sehitwa Meet Community reps and discussions 02 February 2013 Saturday Botswana Maun Analysis 03 February 2013 Sunday Botswana Maun Analysis 04 February 2013 Monday Botswana Maun / Gumare - Shakawe Meet Community reps and discussions & interviews 05 February 2013 Tuesday Botswana Shakawe Meet Community reps and discussions & interviews 06 February 2013 Wednesday Botswana / Namibia Shakawe - Rundu Meet Community reps and discussions & interviews 07 February 2013 Thursday Namibia Kavango Area. Meet Partners and communities including Angola community representatives 08 February 2013 Friday Namibia Rundu - Kwando Meet Community reps and discussions & interviews 09 February 2013 Saturday Namibia Kwando - Katima Molilo Meet Community reps and discussions & interviews 10 February 2013 Sunday Namibia Windhoek Analysis. Fly from KM to Windhoek 11 February 2013 Monday Namibia Windhoek Meet and Interview Partners 12 February 2013 Tuesday Namibia Windhoek Meet and Interview Partners 13 February 2013 Wednesday Namibia Windhoek Meet and Interview Partners 14 February 2013 Thursday South Africa Pretoria Analysis 15 February 2013 Friday Botswana Gaborone Interviews 16 February 2013 Saturday 17 February 2013 Sunday 18 February 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria Report drafting 19 February 2013 Tuesday South Africa Pretoria Report drafting 20 February 2013 Wednesday South Africa Pretoria Report drafting 21 February 2013 Thursday South Africa Pretoria Report drafting 22 February 2013 Friday South Africa Pretoria Interviews 23 February 2013 Saturday 24 February 2013 Sunday 25 February 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria USAID presentation and interviews 26 February 2013 Tuesday Angola Luanda Interviews 27 February 2013 Wednesday Angola Luanda Interviews 28 February 2013 Thursday Angola Luanda Interviews 01 March 2013 Friday Angola Luanda Interviews 02 March 2013 Saturday 03 March 2013 Sunday 04 March 2013 Monday No activity 05 March 2013 Tuesday No activity 06 March 2013 Wednesday No activity 07 March 2013 Thursday No activity 08 March 2013 Friday No activity 09 March 2013 Saturday 10 March 2013 Sunday 11 March 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 12 March 2013 Tuesday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 13 March 2013 Wednesday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 14 March 2013 Thursday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 15 March 2013 Friday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 16 March 2013 Saturday 17 March 2013 Sunday 18 March 2013 Monday South Africa Pretoria Finalising report 19 March 2013 Tuesday South Africa Pretoria Reproducing report 20 March 2013 Wednesday South Africa Pretoria Reproducing report 52 ANNEX V: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Gina Ziervogel Title Senior Lecturer Organization University of Cape Town Evaluation Position? Team Leader x Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) RFTOP-674-13-000004 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Southern Africa Regional Environment Programme I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes x No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. Although I do not feel that there is a conflict of interest, I have been informed that CSAG (Climate Systems Analysis Group) at University of Cape Town, to which I am affiliated, has been in discussions with SAREP about potential work. I have not been involved and do not have any interest in these discussions. I
certify
(1)
that
I
have
completed
this
disclosure
form
fully
and
to
the
best
of
my
ability
and
(2)
that
I
will
 update
this
disclosure
form
promptly
if
relevant
circumstances
change.
If
I
gain
access
to
proprietary
 information
of
other
companies,
then
I
agree
to
protect
their
information
from
unauthorized
use
or
disclosure
 for
as
long
as
it
remains
proprietary
and
refrain
from
using
the
information
for
any
purpose
other
than
that
for
 which
it
was
furnished. Signature Date 25/02/2013 53 ANNEX VI: DETAILS OF PILUMP CLUSTERS AND LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES IN PILUMP AREAS 54 ANNEX VII: PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING FIELD MISSION 17/03/2013 1 SAREP offices, Maun, Botswana Lake Ngami, Botswana Lake Ngami, Botswana Lake Ngami, Botswana 17/03/2013 2 Meeting with Gumare PILUMP committee, Botswana New latrines at Gumare school, Botswana New washing facilities at Gumare school, Botswana Meeting with Tubu Green Unit, Gumare, Botswana 17/03/2013 3 Craft centre, Gumare, Botswana Conservation agriculture, Shakawe, Botswana Conservation agriculture, Shakawe, Botswana Karutci water scheme, Namibia 17/03/2013 4 Karutci water scheme, Namibia SAREP office Rundu, Namibia Angolan community members at Rundu, Namibia Human Wildlife conflict training at the Myuni conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia 17/03/2013 5 Meeting with Chief Myuni, Caprivi, Namibia Meeting with Chief Myuni, Caprivi, Namibia Mashi Conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia Chilli plants being grown to make elephants bombs, Caprivi, Namibia 17/03/2013 6 Mashi crafts, Caprivi, Namibia Mashi crafts – items for sale, Caprivi, Namibia Meeting at the Sikunga conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia Flooding at the Sikunga conservancy, Caprivi, Namibia 55 ANNEX VIII: DETAILED FINDINGS FOR EACH RESULT AREA DETAILED FINDINGS FOR EACH RESULT AREA KRA 1 - Improve Management of the Okavango River Basin KRA 1.1 Science-based systems support regional planning 1.1.1 Design and put into operation decision support model • SAREP organized and facilitated workshops in each country to develop NAPs with local stakeholders • SAREP also provided technical assistance in drafting of the NAPs • Support provided to NAP validation workshops. • NAPs in each country completed. The NAPs define national basin-specific priorities and construct a basin-wide Strategic action plan (SAP). 1.1.2. Develop supporting capacity for effective OKACOM decision-making • Priority biodiversity threats and hotspots identified • DSS developed based on the biodiversity threats and hotspots framework. • LUCIS used as the platform for the DSS and to prioritize geographic areas for SAREP intervention. • DSS presented to OKACOM in May 2011. The presentation enabled the participants to develop a common understanding on the importance and use of the system and how it can be used to meet the needs of partners throughout the basin. • DSS presented to OKACOM biodiversity task force and training provided in its use. • LUCIS DSS presented to OKACOMs combined task forces in Luanda at the OKACOM Commissioners meeting. DSS was approved for implementation and training requested for each countries OBSC related personnel. • Curriculum developed for training in Land Use Conflict Identification System (LUCIS) decision support system targeted at OKACOM related decision-makers and technicians and training courses organized in each of the three countries • More than 30 Technicians and Policy level OKACOM related decision-makers participated in two separate training courses in Botswana and Namibia on the use and operation of the GIS computer-based LUCIS decision support system - allowing the Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC) structures in each of those countries to apply data to scenario planning type activities in their governments. Angola training course planned. KRA 1.2 More effective services provided by institutions 1.2.1 Disseminate IWRM decision support model into localities • Discussions held with OBSC regarding areas of possible support to strengthening their capacity. • Collaboration in the production of promotional material relating to the launch of the TDA process and report. • Support provided to OKACOM's participation in the Australian based Theisis International River prize 2012, as one of four global finalist river basin organizations, including production of video and organization of travel and accommodation. • Support was provided to OKACOM to launch their River Cousins comic and play in Ngamiland. • OKACOM has requested SAREPs support to implement recommendations in the institutional analysis of the commission funded by SIDA. • All (3) OKACOM task forces are up and running more effectively • The biodiversity task force supported on harmonizing policies, developing management plans, etc. • The development of the NAPs make OKACOM a more effective organization • The launch and dissemination of the TDA make OKACOM a more effective organization • The joint implementation of the SAP and NAP • SAREP has contributed to the institutional assessment framework • Without SAREP support, OKACOM would not have been able to meet to plan and implement on a vast array of subjects over the last 2 years 1.2.2 Strengthen capacity of OKACOM and other river basins management authorities • Held meetings with basin wide forum members in the three basin states and developed strategic plans to strengthen the three forums. • Held meetings with OKAsec relating to the function of the Basin Wide Forum. OKAsec has clarified that it wants to work with all legitimate and effective community representative bodies 'including the Basin Wide Forum if and where it operates and is meaningful’ • An exchange visit (look-and-learn visit) was organized and implemented with community representatives from Angola - including Basin wide Forum members - to inspect CBNRM activities in Caprivi and evaluate how these might be applied in their home areas. • OKBMC – has become a functional organization with regular meetings, visions, plans, task forces, and capacitated members. • OWMC had not been meeting and SAREP has assisted it to meet on a regular basis to follow-up on OKACOM issues on a cross-sectoral basis • Numerous government departments have been support to provide more effective services including, DEA Botswana, NamWater, DWSSC Namibia, MINAMB Angola, DWA Water Affairs Botswana, Water Utilities Corporation Botswana KRA 2 - Strengthen Systems to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services SAREP has developed, adapted and applied sound environmental instruments to assist in identifying biodiversity hotspots, threats to these, the management and monitoring of these in principle. The element that now requires attention is the implementation of livelihood support activities that are clearly linked to the sustainable management of the natural resource base including the biodiversity that, in effect, comprise the local communities’ natural capital. KRA 2.1 Threats to biologically important areas identified Generally good progress has been made and the major threats are now recognized. These include; the proliferation of large-scale crop production irrigation schemes, mining, poaching – including illegal fish poaching, the impact of exotic species as well as poverty itself. The challenge is now to address the threats, particularly the high-level threats associated with the extraction of large volumes of water for commercial scale agriculture, possible mining and similar activities. It is of concern that a recent fish ‘die-off’ was purportedly related to an exotic disease of Asian origin. This type of incident requires detailed investigation and should be high on the OKACOM agenda. SAREP can provide assistance for this type of investigation. 2.1.1. Baseline threat analysis • A baseline threat analysis has been completed for the Okavango Delta, using the review of the Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) and the SEA (a good quality report) and working with the Tawana Land Board (TLB) across Ngamiland. The work done on the SEA indicated that the current water utilization in the basin was much closer to the sustainability threshold for off-take than had been previously assumed. This has considerable implications for biodiversity management across the basin area. • A Rapid Ecosystems Health Assessment was completed by Ecosurv in December 2011. It covered the basin as a whole as well as most areas across the Kavango Zambezi Trans-frontier Conservation Area (KAZA) landscape over 5 countries. • In Angola, literature reviews and workshops on the biodiversity ‘hotspots’ have been conducted. An SEA for the whole basin is due to start towards the middle of 2013. The SEA and the National Action Plans (NAPs) have been completed. • Strategies to address the threats are now required and are included in local level planning. • The study of potential benefits per sector for opportunities within the basin by the World Bank will be important in informing sound decision-making in the basin as to potential relative benefits across the development sectors. This, together with the SEA, will allow authorities to look at optimum use within environmentally sustainable boundaries. • Mobilizing the political will to deal with the threats is likely to be a major, ‘high level’, challenge to the programme. We have been advised during our mission to Luanda that all developments in the basin have the required environmental clearances. • SAREP is not addressing the Kariba Weed (Salvinia Molesta) challenge in the delta. This formed a part of the Biokavango Project, but the rationale for omitting an important threat to the delta is not clear. Possibly, this relates to fact that the major part of the threat lies in the delta section of the basin, rather than to the other areas of the basin. 2.1.2. Conduct field studies and monitoring programs • The trans-boundary fisheries study work is helping to provide information for the authorities involved. This is particularly helping Namibia & Botswana. • A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument, adapted from IUCN, CI, WWF and other NGOs, for identifying and assessing biodiversity ‘hotspots’ has been introduced in Kavango with the Biodiversity Task Group of the OKBMC. This is working well and is a sufficiently flexible instrument to allow for adjustment and the insertion of additional criteria that can be individually weighted. This has been used to identify (confirm) the biodiversity ‘hotspots’ and is being used to monitor these hotspots. • The Land Use Conflict Identification System for Evaluating Landscape Management Decisions (LUCIS) using a GIS platform and a multi-disciplinary approach has been effectively introduced in Ngamiland in Botswana and has been enthusiastically embraced by the Tawana Land Board. • The introduction of the LUCIS model has been well received & the training provided has been of benefit. It has served to confirm the biodiversity ‘hot spots’. What has been particularly appreciated in Namibia (OKBMC) is the fact that the results (of the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument) are quantifiable and that new criteria that are weighted can be added. • An aerial survey of the river (photographic) could be useful though costly and should perhaps be undertaken every second year. • With all of the interventions above, the public sector entities that will ‘field’ and use these reports in the future must be identified and prepared for the role. 2.1.3. Implement MOMS-based CBNRM system • Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS), often referred to as “event books monitoring”, has largely integrated into the PILUMPS follow-up and the conservancy planning processes in Namibia. In Botswana, it has been accepted by the Dept. of Wildlife & is used as a PILUMPS follow-up mechanism. It has not yet been employed in Angola, where efforts have concentrated on the development of Conservation Agriculture needs. It is anticipated that MOMS will be employed at a later stage in Angola. • MOMS, or the use of ‘event books’, is a useful tool to track human-wildlife contact and conflict. SAREP is making good use of this to gather information and to assist the community conservancies with training to assess compensation for households suffering damage as a result of wildlife. The progress with this is particularly noticeable in the Caprivi area, where training of conservancy (community) game guards to assess levels of damage was witnessed. Plans to limit human-wildlife conflict are now being developed. • It is important to determine who will receive these reports within the public sector in the future? This must be determined now, and the capacity created within a public institution, if this element is to prove sustainable. 2.1.4. Undertake ecological monitoring in remote biodiversity hotspots • Hotspots in the Kavango area of Namibia have been identified and are being monitored using the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Instrument. • Monitoring activities under a protocol with the concessionaires in the Okavango Delta through which their tourist guides will collect data, have been established. • In Angola, Rapid Environmental Assessments (REAs) are being undertaken rather than relying on community-based approaches. This is in response to the dearth of information and the community-based approach will follow later. The next REAs are planned for April and November. • The monitoring protocol with the Okavango Delta concessionaires represents a good example of a public-private sector partnership. It will contribute to sustainability, as long as the public sector is capacitated to continue in the partnership once SAREP has closed. 2.1.5. Develop GIS-based data management systems to link with MOMS: • This has been achieved and is being utilized. The data management systems are in place and are being linked to MOMS. SAREP has engaged in MOMS training, but it must ensure that the government authorities are fully prepared to manage and use the system and the information flowing from it in the future. KRA 2.2 Communities participating and engaged in confronting critical threats – improved livelihoods The PILUMPS and conservancy planning processes have engaged communities in identifying local risks, opportunities and then zoning land use in their areas accordingly. This part of SAREP’s activities has been largely completed and the communities are generally very enthusiastic to proceed with implementation and livelihood/income-generating activities. Many of the plans require interrogation with regard to long-term sustainability. 2.2.1. Improve welfare of communities in threatened areas • Through the PILUMPS & conservancy processes, livelihoods opportunities have been identified and plans developed for a number of communities in threatened areas. These include: Lake Ngami, Gumare, Tubu, Shakawe, the conservancies in Caprivi and The Residents Association (KweSan) in the Bwabwata National Park. Communities have been enthusiastic participants and are anxious to turn the plans into tangible reality. Innovative ideas like the ‘Tracking School’ development and the bio-capital dividend, in addition to REDD and other better-established initiatives, should be supported and explored further. While the planning to meet the target for the output indicator 10, “5,000 people engaged in new or enhanced conservation based income generating activities” has largely been completed, the programme now needs to concentrate upon implementing the livelihood activities as a matter of urgency. To do this, it will need to support the community structures and ensure that the Small Grant Funds are released in good time. • This element should be a priority for the option period of SAREP. However, the livelihoods initiatives need careful screening and will require on-going mentorship and support. It cannot be assumed that, because the plans have been completed, the task has been accomplished. On-going mentorship will be required. This has been borne out by the experience of IRDNC with the community conservancies in the area as well as general rural development experience throughout the region and is a priority. No initiatives should be started that do not have a high chance of being sustainable once SAREP has closed. • While the number of people engaged in new or enhanced conservation based income-generating activities has not yet risen significantly, it is set to do so soon. However, care must be taken to ensure that the activities provide sustainable benefits to a significant number of local community members in an equitable, fair way. 2.2.2. Prepare SAREP environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP) • This was completed early on in the programme. It satisfies the USAID and Chemonics screening requirements, but the EMMP does not necessarily satisfy the revised requirements of the governments in the basin, with regard to EIAs for example and should be updated. • The EMMP requires that interventions/installations are in line with national regulatory requirements. However these change and the EIA requirement for water installations in Namibia is not sufficiently addressed by the EMMP. This is causing NamWater some concern. They are keen to work with SAREP, but are obliged to follow their updated national environmental and water guidelines and procedures. SAREP should be careful to keep abreast of regulatory environment changes and adapt the EMMP accordingly. 2.2.3. Support drive/process to formalize land and NRs receiving PA status • The SEA has created the framework for improving the conservation status of many areas. A management plan for Lake Ngami is being finalized as part of the process to have it declared as a Bird Sanctuary. The management plan will also cover the fisheries. The local Lake Ngami PILUMP Committee is concerned that outsiders are taking all their fish and leaving no benefits for the local community. • Fisheries protection areas are also being designated, though these are somewhat informal agreements at this stage. • SAREP is working with the Namibian Environment and Tourism authorities to develop a management plan to support the process towards the establishment of a Ramsar site in Bwabwata National Park in Caprivi. • The support given to KAZA areas within the broader basin area should, on its own help to more than meet the ambitious target of 4 million hectares under improved natural resources management. KAZA covers 5 countries (Zambia & Zimbabwe in addition to the OKACOM partners) and an area of 287,132 km². Almost all of this qualifies as “biologically important land”. KRA 2.3 Resources leveraged for sustainable management of important biological areas 2.3.1. Leverage resources to maximize program impact and sustainability • Support for the formulation of a proposal for a UNDP/GEF project on ‘Mainstreaming SLM in rangeland areas of Ngamiland district productive landscapes for improved livelihoods’ has resulted in an initiative of more than US$3 million. Assistance to KAZA is also leveraging additional funding into the area. SAREP is also working with UNEP to develop PES schemes which should result in leveraging and sustainability. • Good progress has been made, though additional future support to address sustainability is still important. KRA 3 - Increase Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation KRA 3.1. River basin communities have improved access to safe drinking water and sanitation 3.1.1. Identify institutional responsibility, and strengthen capacity for WSS delivery Angola • Based on the conditional assessment of 24 schemes general recommendations will be made to the provincial department of water for the improved delivery of water services. • Training will be provided to enable the Angolans to do a condition assessment and develop implementation plans for other schemes. • A database will be developed based on the condition assessment. This will be made available in a readily useable format for the staff of the provincial department of water. • Training needs assessment planned for staff at Menongue treatment works using existing material available from Chemonics. This should assist with the efficient operation of the present plant and the extension of the plant. This intervention will affect the supply of water to more than 300,000 people. Botswana • Under the ‘Adopt a school’ agreement rehabilitation plans will be developed for 13 schools. Once the rehabilitation plans are complete the Ngamiland DoE will seek funding for the implementation of these plans; this will focus on securing funding from the private sector. • The results of the Angola condition assessment has been shared with water sector partners in Botswana and 13 potential areas of support from SAREP have been identified. A workshop is planned for February 2013 to develop support plans. Capacity will be built to use the condition assessment tool. It is hoped that the interaction with the water sector partners in Botswana will result in improved sector collaboration. Namibia • SAREP has established good working relationships with key government partners in the Rundu area – especially the regional office of DWSSC and NamWater. This has resulted in the development of a number of joint projects and the securing of funds from NamWater. • In recent months considerable progress has been made on establishing relationships with DWSSC and NamWater in Windhoek. With DWSSC this is mainly through attendance at the National WATSAN forum. Whilst considerable progress has been made in this respect, discussions with MAWF and NamWater officials in Windhoek suggest that more needs to be done. Specifically there should be a greater sharing of SAREP plans at an early stage and these should take into account Namibian priorities in the water sector. In addition Namibian officials in Windhoek would like to know more about SAREP water activities in Angola and Botswana, and about SAREP activities under the other themes. • OKBMC support. Technical and logistic support has been provided to the OKBMC and to its task teams. • Support has been provided to the Council in Rundu to develop an IWQM plan. This has identified oxidation ponds as being a potential problem – these ponds do not appear to be functioning very well, they are over loaded and on the floodplain so are a potential source of pollution. A consultant has been recruited to advise on the operation of these ponds – this consultant will also look at similar problems elsewhere. 3.1.2. Water demand and supply assessment and finalize target list of communities Angola • A five category tool that takes into account management, breakdown, data etc. has been applied to do a condition assessment of 24 schemes in Angola – a number of these schemes are in Menongue. At least 50% of those originally supplied no longer have access to services. Botswana • Support will be provided to carry out a condition assessment of schemes in Botswana from which rehabilitation plans will be developed. Namibia • SAREP is working closely with NamWater in the Kavango region. SAREP engineers are working closely with those from NamWater on the design of water projects for six communities with a total population of more than 22,000 people. Designs are being prepared for approval by NamWater in Windhoek. Once the designs are approved construction will be undertaken using funds from the community, SAREP and NamWater – this means that SAREP is mobilizing NamWater funds. Once construction has been completed O&M will be undertaken by NamWater ensuring sustainability. SAREPs association with NamWater has helped them to accelerate delivery on the ground by assisting with the prioritization of schemes and the mobilization of funding. • The Denner Foundation is planning to provide water to three communities near Karutci – a total population of 14,000 people. Supply has already been provided to two communities but in one of these it is no longer working. Additionally the provision is strictly illegal because the Denner Foundation is a private supplier which is not allowed under Namibian law. SAREP is assisting to legalize the supply, helping with the design in the third community which is currently not supplied and may help with the supply of a pump in the community that has infrastructure but where the scheme is not working correctly. Once construction is complete the Denner Foundation will cover O&M ensuring sustainability. 3.1.3. Design and implement safe drinking water projects in pilot communities Angola • Based on the condition assessment specific costed recommendations for rehabilitation will be developed for the 24 schemes. This is to be presented to the provincial department of water. Based on these recommendations an implementation plan will be developed • Electrical repairs carried out for a scheme at Calundo which has resulted in 15,000 people having access to water. • Quick win projects in Maue and Mavengue to be implemented – conversion from diesel pumps to manual standpipes. These projects would provide improved water supply to approximately 5,000 people. Botswana • It is hoped that after the condition assessment has been supported it will be possible to support a number of ‘quick wins’ that will improve the access to water for communities in Botswana. • Mababe water supply project. Assessment carried out for the extension of the water supply scheme to all households (to prevent attack by lions). Community has raised some funds and SAREP proposes to provide the additional funds for the completion of the scheme. Namibia • Karutci water project. In close collaboration with both NamWater and the community SAREP assisted with the final design of this project. They also oversaw construction – which was done by the community – and provided materials. Scheme should be operational very shortly. NamWater will be responsible for O&M which should ensure sustainability. • Kayengona water project. This is a NamWater project. The current borehole capacity is not sufficient. SAREP has assisted with the design of a river off-take to increase capacity. This has led to the prioritization of the project and the mobilization of funds from NamWater. Construction by NamWater should commence shortly and be completed within six months. NamWater will be responsible for O&M which should ensure sustainability. 3.1.4. Design and begin implementation of water supply and sanitation projects • CLTS coordinators to be appointed at the technical office in Maun and in each country to manage and monitor the CLTS programme • PACSE training has been included in all areas where the water and sanitation activities of SAREP are being undertaken. Angola • Preparation on ToR for CLTS prepared. Identification and contracting of trainers underway • Identification of CLTS trainees underway. • CLTS exchange visit to Botswana planned to meet CLTS volunteers and receive latrine building training. • CLTS training will be provided in all project communities in Angola and to all Angolan extension facilitators Botswana • A CLTS mobilization workshop was held for extension facilitators and for relevant government agencies to explain the importance of pit latrines as a solution to the problem of open defecation – pit latrines have previously not been seen as acceptable in Botswana. • Five and a half day CLTS training workshop held for communities in the Shakawe area. Training supported the volunteers for a further week to commence their CLTS triggering activities. • CLTS action plan developed by the 20 volunteers in the Shakawe area. • Contract being prepared for the SMART Centre from Malawi to provide latrine building training for CLTS volunteers. Exchange visits from CLTS volunteers in Angola and Namibia will be coordinated with this training. • Plans to extend CLTS programme to Gumare area using the volunteers from Shakawe – training will then follow for the volunteers and communities from the Gumare area. • ‘Adopt a schools programme’. Collaboration agreement with Dept of Education Ngamiland Region. Agreement covers 13 schools in the region. Assessment to be done at all schools. The assessment will be presented to the DoE who will seek funding for the implementation of these plans; this will focus on securing funding from the private sector. What can be done has been showcased at two schools at which SAREP has supported the rehabilitation. At these two schools health and hygiene education (PACSE) has been provided and maintenance plans will be developed. Namibia • Sanitation sensitization commenced • Identification of CLTS trainees underway. • CLTS exchange visit to Botswana planned to meet CLTS volunteers and receive latrine building training. KRA 3.2 Resources leveraged for dissemination of safe drinking water & sanitation 3.2.1 Leverage resources to maximize program impact and sustainability Angola • The Provincial Department of Water have indicated that they have sufficient funds for the rehabilitation of the 24 schemes - they lack the human resources to identify needs and define what needs to be done. Botswana • Under the ‘Adopt a school’ programme rehabilitation plans will be developed for sanitation facilities at 13 schools in Ngamiland. Once the rehabilitation plans are complete the Ngamiland DoE will seek funding for the implementation of these plans; this will focus on securing funding from the private sector. Namibia • SAREP have assisted NamWater to prioritize projects by assisting with design. This has mobilized NamWater funding for projects in the Kavango region. • Through assistance with design SAREP should mobilize funding up to 2.5 M N$ from the Denner Foundation. KRA 4 - Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Basin Management in the Context of Global Climate Change KRA 4.1 Conflicts over shared resources avoided and mitigated through regional mechanisms 4.1.1. Establish climate change focal point within OKACOM Although 4.1.1 is important in identifying a key liaison person, it is unrealistic to expect a focal point to contribute meaningfully to avoiding conflict, which is the overall heading. It is unclear to what extent one focal point would be able to meet all the activities required including communicating and coordinating with regional and international academic/scientific experts on climate change; analyzing national policies and regulations addressing climate change adaptation, pointing out important gaps and/or differences among basin states in public policy approaches to climate change and designing training modules for regional stakeholders in key adaptive management approaches and techniques. Challenges to consider in relation to the focal point activities include: • If coordination with other experts is a priority, it is important to be clear about what is being coordinated. • In terms of analyzing national policies addressing climate change, it would be good to be clear about what type of analysis is needed and the expert skills needed to undertake this. • Lastly, in order to assess the design of training modules for regional stakeholders in key adaptive management approaches and techniques, one would want to know what adaptive management approaches and techniques are included as this is not a clear-cut topic and could include a range of things (ranging from social learning to natural resource management under different climate conditions, to strengthening governance, to improved information sharing). One of the activities planned under 4.1.1 is to facilitate continuing and regular incorporation of climate change data and information in decision-support system data-base. In order to ensure this decision-support system database is of maximum utility, the design of this system needs to be carefully thought through before climate change data is sought. So, how will this system be used? Have the decision makers been consulted about how this might support current activities and be integrated in their current decision making systems? A clear design document outlining the purpose and suggested structure would be an important starting point, as would an assessment of available climate change and additional data that might need to be sourced. This would also help in achieving the Milestone Climate change adaption addressed in decision support system. At present, it is not clear how this would be undertaken or evaluated. 4.1.2. Design a climate change dialogue among OKACOM institutions Activity 4.1.2 aims to develop a forum within OKACOM to enable stakeholders to engage and exchange information and data on climate change on a regular basis. One of the challenges to address is the sustainability of such a forum. In order to address this, it will be important to review it on a regular basis to ensure that it is meeting user needs and not adding to the burden of going to more meetings. Although strengthened user networks are important for bringing in flexibility in responding to environmental change and sharing information, they can also take time away from responding to specific challenges. As part of the Forum meetings, there is a suggestion in the workplan to focus on the Integration of OKACOM and SAREP strategy with ongoing work within the region by academic institutions. It is suggested that relationships with academics are developed strategically. Academics are keen to publish work and draw on material on the ground both from a climate sciences and impacts perspective and from a social science perspective of exploring the governance and adaptation to climate change. SAREP therefore represents a key opportunity for engaging academics. If these partnerships are well developed, there will be benefit for the academics and for SAREP as there will be analysis of data, increased exposure of the project in academic networks and hopefully increased critical insight into some of the challenges and solutions. Using OKACOM as the focal point to facilitate the integration of various on-going projects to help define the potential impacts of climate change to the basin could be supported by the development of a database that keeps track of all related projects in the area, what project outputs are available (publications, journal papers etc.) and contacts of key persons. KRA 4.2 Tools, procedures and expertise in place to manage climate change crises 4.2.1. Design and deliver climate change adaptation measures The policy review suggested is quite broad and seems to build on a vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability assessments can take many forms so it is important to assess the quality of the assessment and what elements it captured and excluded (recognizing that a limited amount can be done). Given the current progress in the project, certain sector￾specific vulnerability assessments could be suggested at this point that would support more in-depth assessments. This would enable the vulnerability assessment to inform sector￾specific adaptation responses. Further assessments might be needed to review adaptation responses that might help to reduce sector-specific vulnerabilities. It is encouraging to see a wide range of climate change adaptation related issues in the SAREP work. Often these activities have not been explicitly packaged in a climate change way. It is worth exploring in more detail the link to current and future vulnerability of some of these responses. Some of the activities that SAREP is undertaking that support adaptation to climate change include: • Flood Preparedness Early Warning System that reduces flood risk if households and organizations can be better prepared. The scheduled sms service for 2013 is likely to increase coverage. • Flood level map for Maun and Kavango region (which will roll-out to other areas). • Improved planning for fire risk (which is new and entails AFIS linking with ‘Working on Fire’ in SA). • The establishment and improvement of the ‘Wildlife Corridors’ (with WWF) to allow the game to move as a response to climate variability (and impacts on habitat). • Conflict training for communities and around wildlife-human conflict. • The establishment of water holes for game away from the floodplains that will allow the game to move after the harvesting season. This will not only lesson the human-wildlife conflict, but will also build-on the strengthened climate change resilience resulting from Conservation Agriculture. • Improved understanding of hydrological data under climate change scenarios (supported by work with UCT). There is the intention to look at the projected impacts for different sectors which would help with developing adaptation to specific climate change scenarios in different sectors. • Conservation Agriculture which can build resilience to climate variability and reduced water availability • The trans-frontier fisheries work is part of building resilience and livelihood diversification. • Climate change has been identified as a major focus issue by the OKACOM Biodiversity Task Force where they are looking at REDD and PES (with UNEP) approaches with the basin. • Income opportunity diversification is part of the climate change approach, and SAREP supported the three country partners with a presentation at COP (Conference of Parties) 17 in Durban. It is important to explore this further to assess how the potential income opportunities might become more vulnerable under a changing climate. • SAREP is attempting to build climate change awareness within government. The SAREP 2011 Annual report mentions that a basin-specific assessment of potential climate change impacts was planned with USFS in Angola. This would be a welcome assessment and it would be good to see how this assessment was done and how the results have been used to inform future activities. KRA 5 - Strengthen and Advance Regional, National, and Local Approaches to Planning to Support SAREP Regional and Program Goals KRA 5.1. Investments increased in water supply and sanitation and biodiversity conservation 5.1.1. Integrate SAREP planning techniques into regional, national, and local planning • A total of 35 PILUMPs have been developed together with planning documents in 15 conservancies. The PILUMP process is discussed in more detail under KRA2. • Implementation plans for PILUMPs are being developed and will potentially be supported by SAREP through grants – this is covered by partly by the livelihoods component of KRA2 • PILUMP implementation will take many years so cannot be completed under SAREP – this means that the integration of PILUMPs into local planning processes is essential. • Discussions are underway with the Tawana Land Board in Ngamiland, Botswana to integrate PILUMPs into the land allocation process. • PILUMPs in Namibia are closely linked to the establishment of conservancies Regional Level: • SAP for Basin • Harmonization of Fisheries policy/development of fisheries management plan • OKACOM institutional assessment and planning National Level • NAPs for Angola, Botswana, and Angola • SEA and revised ODMP for the Delta • DWSSC/MAWF annual planning for Kavango Region • Condition assessment for water facilities in Angola Community Level • Financial planning for Caprivi Conservancies • Flood Preparedness plans for Caprivi Conservancies Enhanced data for planning • Angola biodiversity survey • DSS/LUCIS • M&E framework for biodiversity threats in the Delta KRA 5.2. Development plans measure progress towards Millennium Development Goals 1, 6 and 7 5.2.1. Targets and indicators incorporated in regional, national, and local development plans • SAREP are monitoring their activities specifically against their indicators • Through the interaction with government there should be an awareness of SAREPs activities. • No evidence can be found of monitoring against the MDGs KRA 5.3. More people informed about and have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment 5.3.1. Assess and implement approaches to preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in TBAs • Progress has been slow in addressing the needs of the local populations affected and infected with HIV & AIDS. The Namibian Government has commented on the high HIV prevalence rates in districts covered by SAREP support in its biennial report to UNAIDS • Progress reports prepared for the project by Chemonics have noted that the funding available for this KRA under this programme have been reduced to $100,000. This level of funding will have a limited impact on HIV prevention and treatment in a programme of this size. • SAREP staff have attempted to work with national HIV NGOs in each country and spent time attempting to agree work plans with both Namibian NGOs (SIAPAC) and with Botswana NGOs and Peace Corp. • The limited budgetary funding has meant that it has not been possible to implement HIV activities in Namibia or Angola at this stage. • Whilst there is evidence of planning to engage, there is limited evidence of a coherent response programme based on both prevention and treatment interventions that are capable of being sustained under country ownership • SAREP is concerned to establish accurate baseline data for HIV and AIDS activities in the areas in areas where it is working. Country level data on the incidence and prevalence of HIV is available in the UNAIDS Biennial (UNGASS) reports that could be used for this purpose. In Botswana this data can also be obtained from District level Health Department Offices. Given the limited budget available and the difficulty of direct attribution for programme implementation the production of SAREP generated baselines is unlikely to be possible.