10 July 07 
MID-TERM PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION OF 
USAID/SOUTHERN AFRICA’S PROGRAM TO “IMPROVE 
MANAGEMENT OF SHARED RIVER BASINS” 
Report to USAID/Southern Africa, 
Gaborone, Botswana 
Evaluation Team: 
Marc Andreini 
Kumbulani Murenga 
Tom Wilbanks 
July 2007 
1
MID-TERM PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION OF USAID/SOUTHERN 
AFRICA’S PROGRAM TO “IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF SHARED 
RIVER BASINS” 
Executive Summary
USAID commissioned a mid-term evaluation of the Okavango Integrated River Basin Management 
Project (IRBM) in order to assess progress and consider possible directions for further program 
development after 2008. Conducted with limited resources over a relatively brief period, the assessment 
identified significant positive accomplishments, despite a number of issues and challenges. 
Accomplishments of IRBM in its first two years have included contributions to: establishing a Secretariat 
for OKACOM and transferring responsibility for the Secretariat’s ongoing support to regional partners; a 
pioneering river basin organization (RBO) workshop; cross-boundary river basin management networks; 
and significantly strengthened relationships with partners. Challenges for the project include institutional, 
technical, and financial sustainability; certain differences between the priorities of USAID and those of 
regional partners; uncertainties about future roles and activities of GEF; enhancing the relationship with 
SADC; and improving IRBM-related communications with Angolan partners through increased 
bilingualism. 
As requested by USAID, the assessment team recommended program strategies and actions for the 
remainder of the current program, 2007-2008: assure smooth and effective transfer of the Secretariat 
responsibility to OKACOM, assist OKACOM in assuring a structure for technical oversight and 
assistance functions, increase the focus on assisting OKACOM with longer-term priorities (see below), 
and take appropriate steps in relationships with SADC and, as possible, GEF. 
For USAID regional environmental efforts beyond 2008, the team recommended two emphases: a focus 
on strengthening OKACOM’s roles in establishing sustainable regional institutions for future water 
resource management and transboundary cooperation and assisting partners to transfer lessons learned 
from experiences with integrated river basin management among major river basins in Southern Africa. 
2
MID-TERM PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION OF 
USAID/SOUTHERN AFRICA’S PROGRAM TO “IMPROVE 
MANAGEMENT OF SHARED RIVER BASINS” 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
For a little more than two years, USAID has been addressing regional environmental issues by 
strengthening multi-national river basin management, focused on the Okavango River Basin. 
The Okavango Integrated River Basin Project is a four-year commitment, 2004-2008, in support 
of this objective, emphasizing capacity-building for regional river basin management. 
Late in 2006, the Mission commissioned a mid-term evaluation to assess progress in reaching 
objectives and consider possible directions for further program development after 2008. 
“Evaluation” may be too strong a term for a participative diagnostic process so early in a 
program’s lifetime, given the long-term nature of impacts from many of USAID’s development 
programs, challenges of rapid institution-building in developing countries, and continuing 
changes in the institutional context of the project. But a small team, operating over only a few 
weeks, has done its best to determine how program activities match up with regional needs, 
when several other international donors are active as well, and to offer thoughts about the most 
promising directions for the future. 
1.1. Scope and Objectives of the Evaluation Effort
The evaluation focused on assessing progress toward improved management of the Okavango 
River basin, with emphasis on institutional strengthening and biodiversity conservation. As next 
steps were considered, particularly in light of the new U.S. Framework for Foreign Assistance, 
the benefits of maintaining continuity of existing initiatives were assessed and compared with 
 
3
other opportunities or approaches that might be more effective in achieving foreign assistance 
objectives for water management and biodiversity conservation from a regional platform. For the 
current project, the evaluation assessed what activities are the best prospects to achieve existing 
strategic goals and results, to the degree that they are still valid and appropriate for a USAID 
regional program. 
Within constraints of very limited time, combined with an extremely complex project and 
enormous quantities of documentation, the evaluation team reviewed available USAID source 
materials relevant to the project, and it conducted a brief but intensive program of country visits 
and other field work to investigate project accomplishments, issues, and partner/stakeholder 
viewpoints. Evaluation questions are listed in the evaluation scope of work, which was 
developed in consultation with partners and customers and made available to a wide range of 
program and project partners and stakeholders in advance of the field work (see Appendix A 
below). 
1.2 How the Evaluation Was Conducted
The evaluation included three components. First, team members reviewed program and project 
documents, consulted key program leaders and participants, and identified issues to explore. 
Second, team members visited Angola, Namibia, and Botswana to consult local and other (e.g., 
international donor) stakeholders and institutions and add personal knowledge of project 
activities, processes, and impacts (see Appendix B below). Third, team members consulted with 
USAID/Southern Africa about the larger context of long-term regional environmental program 
development, along with developing its conclusions and recommendations. The main focus was 
not on a scorecard for the past but on a shared, consultative view of how USAID’s regional 
environmental program can contribute to “transformational development” in the region’s future. 
One of the innovations associated with this evaluation was that, from the outset, the evaluation 
was conducted as an “open” process, with the scope of work and other information posted on an 
internet site and distributed widely to stakeholders in the region. 
4
1.3 Content of the Report
This report first summarizes the program and the Okavango Integrated River Basin Management 
Project, along with: USAID’s objectives, intended results, and indicators for monitoring 
performance; program management and partnerships; and the program’s changing context during 
the 2004-2006 period. It then assesses the progress of the program and project during the 2004-
2006 period, along with issues raised by the learning experience to date. It continues by 
recommending strategies and actions for the remaining project period (to September 2008), 
along with issues and options for USAID regional environmental program development after 
2008. It concludes by summarizing conclusions and recommendations. 
2. SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM 
This project is still early in its evolution in a development context where significant results often 
require commitments of a decade or more, and it has had to cope with and adjust to frequent 
changes in project budgets and at least the details associated with project objectives. As a result, 
it is difficult to conduct a “program evaluation” in the usual sense, because it is too early for 
many of the project’s initiatives to show significant development outcomes and because the 
scorecard has shifted as the project has evolved. The sections below consider what can be 
learned from the experience to date that can inform the design of future activities. 
2.1 Program Origins and Purposes
The Okavango Integrated River Basin Management Project (IRBM) had its origins in discussion 
as early as the 1980s about a need for community-based regional natural resource management in 
Southern Africa. Initial interests in an activity in the Limpopo River Basin were redirected early 
in this decade to attention to the Okavango River Basin. There were issues at the outset related 
to USAID coordination (or the lack thereof) with national governments and other donors in the 
region. In 2003, USAID/Southern Africa prepared a new Mission strategy for 2004-2010 that 
included a significant Okavango basin management activity, to be implemented through a major 
contractor. IRBM was the result: a four-year (2004-2008) project led by ARD, Inc., through an 
5
IQC (a flexible contracting mechanism available through USAID Headquarters). The project is 
coordinated by the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) and is 
focused in large part on assisting OKACOM in building its capacities for integrated regional 
river basin management. 
In broad terms, as agreed between USAID and OKACOM, IRBM has three components: (1) 
strengthening OKACOM and member states; (2) information management for improved decision 
making, and (3) community participation. USAID’s interests in the project also include (a) 
strengthening institutions for regional coordination and cooperation and (b) strengthening 
institutions and practices for biodiversity conservation in the region. 
By USAID standards, this regional project is relatively small, with total annual budget support of 
$2.5 million in FY 2004, $2.3 million in 2005, and $2.2 million in 2006. Estimates of future 
funding remain uncertain, but they are projected to be in the $1.5 - $1.8 million per year range.
2.2 Program Strategic Objectives, Intended Results, and Performance Indicators
IRBM was designed as a vehicle for achieving USAID’s Strategic Objective (SO) 17: 
Strengthen regional capacity for improved management of shared river basins. This SO 
includes two Intermediate Results (IRs): #1 – Improved protection of biodiversity and provision 
of ecological services; and #2 – Strengthened institutional capacity for basin management. The 
SO and both IRs are associated with several performance indicators: each with a unit of measure, 
a description of the method for data collection, and annual targets for monitoring progress. 
These metrics are developed and periodically revised in collaboration with partners and 
stakeholders, especially OKACOM and OBSC (see below). 
 
6
2.3 Program Management and Partnerships
IRBM is implemented through a four-year contract with ARD, Inc., a well-known U.S.-based 
consulting firm. ARD’s responsibilities are defined by the terms of its contract, which has 
changed as the project has evolved. As of the time of this evaluation, Amendment #9 to the 
contract was in the pipeline (in less than two and one-half years). ARD has formed a project 
office and team, based in Gaborone, including leaders of the individual project components. 
IRBM’s principal partner is the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission 
(OKACOM), formed in 1994 by the three riparian nations sharing the basin: Angola, Botswana, 
and Namibia. OKACOM receives technical assistance from the Okavango Basin Steering 
Committee (OBSC). IRBM has also worked in collaboration with international donor 
organizations (especially GTZ and Sida), regional organizations (especially SADC), national and 
local government and non-governmental organizations, and private sector groups active in the 
region. A very wide range of partnerships is described in project documents, and some of the 
partnerships are very active and productive (see below). 
2.4 The Program’s Context during the Period 2004-2006
USAID/Southern Africa’s environmental program in general and IRBM in particular have seen 
constant changes, or potentials for change, over only a few years (Table 1). Several times each 
year, strategies have been modified, objectives restated, budgets revised, and/or activities added. 
This pattern of change has required great flexibility and adaptability on the part of both the 
USAID regional mission and its IRBM implementing partner, ARD, and it has added to 
challenges in achieving specific activity targets over the first two-year period of the project.
7
Table 1. USAID/Southern Africa Environmental Program Evolution 
(partial listing) 
2003-
2004
Contractors assist Mission in preparing new 
Environmental Strategy for 2004-2010. Final 
plan assumed $18.6m (>$3m/yr) for Okavango 
Basin Program, and $17.5m for contracted 
IRBM “Activity” 
“Improved” basin management” not 
defined. Biodiversity not integrated. 
Strategy and design assume inclusion 
of significant community enterprise 
component.
July 
2004
Strategy approved but budget (future funding) 
uncertain; now estimated at 30% less than 
Strategic Plan levels. New guidance: funding 
will depend on criteria and performance 
Community component dropped from 
USAID’s budget for activity 
(contractor). Emphasis on supporting a 
new strategy for Africa. 
Sept 
2004
USAID signs contract with ARD Inc under 
IQC to implement project; 4 yrs @ $1.5m/yr 
($6m total). (Mission retained some funding 
for proposed cross-cutting support objective). 
73% of funding from biodiversity earmark.
Contract budget is half the amount 
assumed in Strategy. Community 
component to depend on assessment 
of niche in first year, and availability of 
funds
July￾Sept 
2005
Amendment 3 negotiated with ARD to replace 
SOW to better reflect priorities from 
stakeholder strategic planning workshop, 
biodiversity indicators, and increase total 
estimated cost by $650k (contract Total 
Estimated Cost, TEC = $6.65m)
The revised SOW formed basis for 
USAID and project level PMP and 
indicators. The additional funding 
allowed inclusion of community 
activities in SOW.
Mar 
05- 
now
Multiple studies, reviews and HQ exchanges 
Over future of RCSA – Proposal on table to 
move/integrate Regional Mission with USAID 
in South Africa (Pretoria)
Questions about future of Regional 
Mission increased budgetary 
uncertainties and made forward planning 
difficult. 
Jan￾Apr 
2006
Amendments 5 & 6 negotiated with ARD 
include $450k and $101k in new funding to: (a) 
expand project efforts in biodiversity 
conservation and achievement of SO results per 
Washington guidance for Strategic Objectives 
and biodiversity programs, (b) modify reports 
& deliverables to emphasize stakeholder 
participation, (c) implement 3 small activities 
with Botswana Trust Funds ($101k) and (d) 
incorporate component for SADC activities. 
These amendments bring TEC to $7.2m
The amendments expanded program 
activities and counterparts, and increased 
emphasis on a results framework and 
biodiversity indicators per strategic 
planning and guidance from Washington; 
that guidance would be changed again a 
few months later. In practice, some 
stakeholder participation requirements 
appeared useful, but additional work in 
Botswana was not directly related to core 
program results. 
March 
2006-
USAID announces Foreign Assistance Reform. 
New procedures and criteria for planning, 
reporting and funds allocations. Former system 
with SOs & Annual Reports replaced. Funding 
to use new set of standard program definitions 
and indicators across agencies. Missions to 
develop joint plans and budgets with other 
federal agencies in each country. 
Ongoing process that continues in 2007 
with new guidelines and changes being 
communicated to field Missions each 
month. This has increased uncertainty 
about future funding and program 
direction. It also indicated that reductions 
were likely for regional programs. 
8
Moreover, the context is complicated by the fact that the project is not very large, compared with 
some other international assistance efforts (especially proposed GEF roles) and by a need to 
work in two languages (Angola is Portuguese-speaking). 
In addition, the project is sometimes caught between two sets of driving forces that are not 
identical in what they are asking for. From one direction, in a sense top-down, USAID is 
focused on its agency’s priorities and the use of relatively specific statements of objectives and 
intended results. From the other direction, the project has cultivated a “service provider” 
relationship with partners, asking OKACOM and others “What assistance do you want?” and 
seeking to respond to requests. In this bottom-up sense, requests for assistance do not always 
match up perfectly with directives from above, which has added further complexities to the 
project context (see 3.2.2.2 below). 
3. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS, 2004-2006
 
As explained above, this “evaluation” is a relatively big-picture diagnostic assessment, focused 
not on detailed components of the Mission’s strategic objective or of IRBM per se but on the 
major underlying themes and purposes of the USAID regional environmental program for 
Southern Africa. 
In the sub-sections below, we summarize our findings about major accomplishments to date and 
major issues for the project in its first two years. 
3.1 Summary of Major Accomplishments and Issues
We find that in its first two years the IRBM project has had significant positive institutional 
impacts, despite a number of issues and challenges. It has been notable for its responsiveness to 
requests for assistance from OKACOM, the regional institution for river basin management in 
the Okavango River Basin, and in its flexibility as needs and contexts have changed. It is very 
effectively led by USAID and ARD, with part-time assistance from ORNL, all of whose key 
9
figures are impressively competent, committed, productive, and superb in their relationships with 
partners and counterparts. This is a very impressive leadership team. 
To some degree, at least, some of the notable accomplishments in the first two years may have 
come at a price, however. Although other accomplishments have been realized as well, the 
emphasis on organizational institution-building for OKACOM has probably reduced the levels of 
management attention and resources available for other components of the project. In fact, the 
project’s exceptional attention to “service provision” to OKACOM and many other partners and 
activities has probably detracted from a focus on some of the project’s stated objectives, 
although the OKACOM accomplishments would likely not have been possible otherwise. 
For answers to the “key questions” listed in the evaluation scope of work, see Appendix C. 
3.2 Major Accomplishments 
3.2.1 Establishing a Secretariat for OKACOM 
OKACOM was established by agreement among Angola, Botswana, and Namibia in 1994, but as 
of the startup of IRBM in 2004 this regional institution still lacked staff capacities to facilitate its 
work, although national commissioners met periodically. When the new USAID project, defined 
with OKACOM as its principal local counterpart, asked OKACOM what assistance would be 
most useful in moving the institution toward a capacity for integrated river basin management, 
the request was for assistance in establishing a Secretariat to provide continuing staff support. In 
direct response, an Interim Secretariat was established – an adjunct of IRBM – as a first step 
toward providing staff support for OKACOM operations. The Interim Secretariat demonstrated 
to the Commission and its constituencies what could be accomplished when it had staff available 
to carry out continuing administrative tasks and other duties that Commissioners are too busy to 
undertake themselves. OKACOM representatives informed the evaluation team that this 
assistance was a vitally important step toward realizing OKACOM’s potential as an asset for 
regional river basin management. 
10
3.2.2 Succeeding in Transferring Responsibility for the OKACOM Secretariat to Regional 
Partners
As important for regional institutional capacity-building as establishing the interim Secretariat 
was IRBM’s successful development of a plan – in collaboration with OKACOM, Sida, and 
other partners – to move this function out of IRBM into OKACOM itself, as a function of the 
regional institution rather than of a supporting donor. With continuing financial assistance from 
Sida, planned to phase out gradually, the new OKACOM Secretariat is expected to be in 
operation by the fall of 2007. Achieving this progress in less than three years is a significant 
accomplishment indeed. 
3.2.3 Contributing to a Pioneering River Basin Organization (RBO) Workshop
In collaboration with SADC, which has produced a general protocol for river basin management 
in Southern Africa, and in partnership with GTZ, in 2006 IRBM contributed substantially to 
organizing and conducting a first workshop bringing together representatives of more than 15 
organizations charged with trans-boundary river basin management roles or responsibilities 
across Southern Africa to begin working toward cross-communication and a shared 
understanding of challenges and opportunities. This first workshop was a learning experience, 
but it was a significant first step in a direction that is both promising and in the longer run 
essential. 
3.2.4 Cross-boundary River Basin Management Network-building
One of the most fundamental challenges to integrated river basin management in the Okavango 
basin is to build contact networks across national boundaries, not only among national 
governments but particularly among technical counterparts, working toward a much stronger and 
broader awareness of the basin as an integrative focus for discussion and work. 
11
During its first two years, the project facilitated workshops that brought technicians from 
Namibia, Angola and Botswana to discuss the stream gauging technologies they use, participate 
in training modules, and learn new techniques from one another. The training curriculum was 
created through collaboration between USAID consultants and the national staff of the riparian 
countries. Using this collaborative approach contributed to the creation of a syllabus that was 
tailored to the needs of the technicians in the basin. It was appropriate for the bio-physical 
environment of the Okavango and contained specific information about the equipment and 
techniques being employed here. 
There are many opportunities for high-level technical experts to expand their data analysis or 
modeling skills, but almost none for technicians to hone their skills. Technicians are often 
ignored by capacity building projects. They are generally poorly paid employees with limited 
educational opportunities and without prospects for advancement within their organizations. 
This training is very valuable because it contributes to the standardization of data collection 
procedures, improvements of the quality of the data collected, and motivation of the technicians 
themselves. Traveling to another country for training signals to the technicians the importance 
attached to their jobs. It builds morale and pride in their craft. And it helps to build 
understanding and trust in transboundary relationships and problem-solving. Similar efforts to 
bring local stakeholders and technicians together around natural resource management also 
appear promising. 
Field-based activities to date have been focused in southeastern Angola, where most of the 
rainfall for the Okavango River Basin is collected. This province, Kuando Kubango, contains 
Angola’s largest block of forested protected areas, linked to ecosystems in Zambia, Namibia, and 
Botswana via transboundary migration corridors of large mammals. Areas of biological 
importance are distributed across the three nations of the Basin, forming the heart of a future 
Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area; and therefore the long-term protection of 
Angola’s forest cover is important for preserving biodiversity in the entire Basin, including the 
Okavango Delta and beyond. 
12
3.2.5 Significantly Strengthened Relationships with Partners
In a context that has seen an increasing number of players and initiatives over time and, 
reportedly, some strains between USAID and its partners in the past, the IRBM project has given 
significant attention to issues of co-ordination, collaboration, and integration. Tangible 
accomplishments that either demonstrate or foster strengthened relationships can be identified at 
various levels as highlighted below. 
3.2.5.1 Strengthened relationships at the implementation and technical level
The IRBM project has participated in a joint implementation approach together with two major 
regional projects in the Okavango basin: the Every River Has its People (ERP) project and the 
Global Environment Facility’s Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the 
Okavango Project. A joint implementation matrix bringing together activities of mutual concern 
was developed as a framework to guide where and how the 3 projects (ERP, GEF, IRBM) should 
integrate their efforts. This is a significant effort for the attainment of a coordinated 
implementation mechanism, and it is also noted that this was conducted under OKACOM 
guidance and serves to facilitate the coordination role of OKACOM as a regional body with a 
mandate to encourage and facilitate synergy. 
3.2.5.2 Strengthened relationships at strategic and basin planning levels
Through dedicated participation and support to OKACOM strategic and basin planning 
initiatives (OBSC and OKACOM activities), IRBM has nurtured an important relationship with 
both OKACOM and other players at the highest level, thereby contributing to a platform for 
integrated participation and planning at a strategic level. The responsiveness of IRBM to 
emerging strategic needs of OKACOM is a foundation-stone for this relationship. An attempt to 
strengthen relationships with other River Basin Organisations (RBOs) at the SADC level through 
involvement in the planning and financing of the first-ever workshop on support to RBOs in the 
SADC region is an added component that has a potential to create special synergies and 
relationships with both SADC as a regional body, as well as with other RBOs in the SADC 
13
region, some of whom have similar experiences with OKACOM. A strengthened relationship 
with SADC is good for understanding the nature and goals of the SADC framework, while a 
strengthened relationship with other RBOs is important for sharing experiences, lessons, and 
other beneficial processes. 
3.2.5.3 Strengthened relationships at the financing and resource level 
Jointly planned and coordinated resource allocation and mobilization is one of the important 
aspects enshrined in the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness (OECD, 2005). IRBM 
coordination with Sida in supporting the establishment of a permanent secretariat for OKACOM 
was an important milestone in establishing strengthened financial coordination in the Okavango, 
and this has established a good model for donor coordination in supporting OKACOM in the 
future. A similar engagement has been established with UNDP GEF on financing a hydromet 
sub-component of IRBM, and this is also a good example of strengthened relationships in 
financing implementation activities. The mutual willingness of these three programs to dedicate 
time and resources to coordination was essential for the success of collaborative initiatives. 
3.3 Issues for the Project
These and other accomplishments are a part of the overall picture of the project’s first two years. 
Another part of the picture is that a number of issues have emerged that deserve attention as the 
USAID regional environmental program and the IRBM project move forward. 
3.3.1 Institutional, Technical and Financial Sustainability 
One critical issue is how to assure that the initiatives begun under IRBM can be sustained for the 
longer term. 
14
3.3.1.1 Institutional sustainability
The achievements of the IRBM project to date, as well as the milestones attained in relation to 
OKACOM, depend on sustainable institutional frameworks. This implies strong and strategic 
institutional structures that allow for easy institutionalization of processes in the basin and 
continuity in that regard. In sustaining the strengthened relationships that IRBM and other 
initiatives have fostered in the Okavango basin, there are 3 major elements limiting efficiency 
and effectiveness: i) strategic structures that support basin processes within the riparian 
countries, ii) strategies and mechanisms for institutional renewal, and iii) a qualified human 
resource base. These remain key challenges for sustaining the institutional framework and for 
maintaining an enabling institutional environment 
3.3.1.2 Technical sustainability
Another aspect of sustainability relates to technical capacity and technical systems in the basin: 
e.g., data collection and its maintenance. Long term technical competence is required as well as 
mechanisms for ensuring ownership, institutionalization, and maintenance of technical processes 
within the riparian countries and especially within OKACOM as the basin custodian. This 
challenge is tied to institutional renewal and a qualified human resource base at the technical 
level. Technical sustainability is important given its potential to negate the benefits of current 
technical efforts in the future. It is noted that technical sustainability is closely related to 
processes that generate data and information such as regional research and dialogue, both of 
which merit further attention in the Okavango at present. 
3.3.1.3 Financial sustainability
The aspects of ownership, institutionalization, and sustenance of river basin processes in the 
Okavango, which are critical, need to be tied to a financing framework that involves the riparian 
countries both at planning and resourcing levels. Although there has been dialogue and general 
agreement that the riparian countries will need to contribute towards OKACOM in the future, the 
absence of a clear strategy and framework for how, as well as what, this will entail has the 
15
potential to negate the good efforts of IRBM as it impacts on both technical and institutional 
sustainability. This also could have a limiting effect on donor strategies on future support to the 
Okavango. The mechanism for ensuring future funding from riparian countries does not 
(currently) appear to be anchored in any binding instruments, nor the commitment; a close look 
at plausible possibilities is needed. 
3.3.2 Certain Differences between the Priorities of USAID and Those of Regional Partners 
As it has evolved as a partnership between USAID, OKACOM, and the three countries that share 
the Okavango River basin, the project has found that the priorities of USAID as a U.S. 
government agency and those of the riparian parties in the region are not always identical, at 
least in a sense of relative emphasis. A major driver for USAID funding for IRBM is U.S. 
stakeholder interest in managing the basin to conserve biodiversity. Another essential criterion 
for continued USAID/Southern Africa funding is to show that activities are truly regional. On 
the other hand, as USAID negotiates program design and implementation agreements with its 
partners, it has found that biodiversity protection is currently a high priority for only one of the 
three countries (Botswana) and that national partners are interested in seeing national benefits as 
well as regional benefits. Neither of these examples of differing priorities is an insurmountable 
problem for USAID regional environmental program development in the longer run, but they 
have sometimes added complexity to project development and management in the initial years. 
The three riparian countries have very different interests in the management of the basin. Most 
of the water flowing in the Okavango River comes from rainfall in Angola; both Namibia and 
Botswana are very arid countries. Botswana would like to preserve the timing and levels of 
natural river flow into the delta and is concerned with the maintenance of the as yet poorly 
understood sediment load carried by the river into the delta. Namibia may want to extract some 
water for the central area of Namibia and for irrigation within the basin. Angola has expressed 
interest in establishing regional river basin planning and management authorities. As the 
upstream riparians, the river is available to Angola independent of Namibia and Botswana, and 
the development of Kuando Kubango Province has been delayed due to the recently ended war 
in Angola. A dialogue about benefit sharing among the three countries – as a regional issue 
16
beyond dividing the total of donor support between three countries – has been initiated, but 
experience in many parts of the world suggests that considerable time may be required to move 
toward formal agreements. 
3.3.3 Uncertainties about Future Roles and Activities of GEF 
Establishment of a large GEF project expected to develop a strategic action plan for integrated 
river basin planning for the Okavango River basin was suspended by GEF following an 
evaluation of project start-up. This project is potentially such a large part of the multi-donor role 
in the basin that it is difficult to plan the activities of either OKACOM or other donors without 
knowing what is to be supported, when, and how. As of the time of the assessment, OKACOM 
had no information about what to expect and no clear channels of communication with GEF to 
get some sense of what is likely to happen. Resolving this uncertainty, hopefully by moving 
ahead with the assistance that GEF had earlier explored, is a very high priority. 
3.3.4 Enhancing the Relationship with SADC 
Supporting SADC has become a U.S. government foreign policy objective, and as one 
expression of this commitment IRBM has received funding for SADC programs related to shared 
river basins. SADC’s Water Division, however, has very limited capacity for any operational 
functions; and it appears that the best use of USAID support would be to pursue joint agreements 
that USAID funding be focused on well-defined products that add to services delivered by 
SADC rather than to expanding the capacity of the Water Division per se. 
3.3.5 Improving IRBM-related Communications with Angolan Partners through Increased 
Bilingualism 
Although many of IRBM’s Angolan partners have a working knowledge of English, they are 
reluctant to make decisions based on their reading of documents written in English. English, of 
course, is the language of Namibian and Botswana governments. Over the past two years, there 
have been occasions when the translation into Portuguese of documents drafted in English has 
17
been delayed. It is appreciated that there may sometimes be unavoidable constraints that force 
delays in the translation of documents; nevertheless, when this is the case it is recommended that 
the release of the English version be delayed to coincide with the release of the Portuguese 
version. This will allow the Angolan partners the same length of time to consider their response 
to the documents as is afforded the Namibians and Botswana. And it will avoid the unintended 
appearance that the Portuguese language is of secondary importance. 
4. RECOMMENDED PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE 
REMAINDER OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM, 2007-2008. 
 
In general, we recommend that the Mission emphasize continuity and transition rather than 
radical change. IRBM should work from its strengths to realize full value from early-year 
investments in institutional capacity and relationship building to move toward somewhat greater 
focus on selected areas for technical assistance that are likely to be featured in the longer run. 
More specific recommendations are the following. 
4.1 Assure Smooth and Effective Transfer of the Secretariat Responsibility to 
OKACOM
No other challenge is more important to the future of integrated river basin management for the 
Okavango than assuring that the new OKACOM Secretariat is successful. Although this is a 
joint responsibility among a number of partners, most notably Sida which will assume the 
majority of the funding responsibility, USAID and IRBM will have a particular opportunity to 
contribute over the next year or two because of their involvement in the Interim Secretariat. The 
Secretariat’s new Executive Secretary will need a wide range of assistance in the early months, 
and in the longer run the Secretariat will need technical backstopping as it confronts such issues 
as developing a financing strategy, translating key documents, and facilitating special OKACOM 
administrative requirements. 
18
4.2 Assist OKACOM in Assuring a Structure for Technical Oversight and Assistance 
Functions
It is clear that the Secretariat will provide essential administrative functions for OKACOM, but 
many of OKACOM’s important functions will be technical: e.g., hydrology, ecology, and data 
base management. This suggests a need for technical staff capabilities within OKACOM, or 
structurally related to OKACOM, in order to meet technical requirements for decision-making. 
OBSC may play some of these roles, and some current initiatives suggest that OBSC could in 
fact be the main vehicle for providing technical support. In any event, along with the emergence 
of the Secretariat as OKACOM’s administrative staff, OKACOM may need assistance in 
evolving a structure for technical staffing as well. Assisting OKACOM in determining how to 
meet this need and in developing a structure for it is a priority for the next two years. 
4.3 Increase the Focus on Assisting OKACOM with the Longer-term Priorities 
Suggested Below
As IRBM assists OKACOM over the next two years, the project should increase its focus on 
technical assistance in the areas suggested in part 5 below, not as a radical change in direction – 
since most of these topical areas are already included within the scope of IRBM support – but as 
a steady evolution that will show a change in the relative allocation of effort by the end of the 
current project. 
4.4 Take Appropriate Steps in Relationship with SADC and, as Possible, GEF
Although IRBM has developed a history of positive collaborations with SADC, the allocation of 
additional USG funding specifically to support activities with SADC’s Water Division opens up 
new questions and opportunities. SADC’s Protocol on Shared Watercourses is an important step 
for the region, but its current institutional capacities are limited. In order to realize as much 
benefit as possible from the new USG funding, we recommend that USAID seek joint 
agreements with SADC to target USAID contributions on defined products that contribute to 
services provided by the SADC water division rather than on internal institutional needs of the 
division itself. 
19
Likely relationships between Okavango Basin activities of USAID and the potentially very large 
commitment of funding and effort by GEF remain murky. One possible contribution by USAID 
and USG could be to assist OKACOM and other partners in determining what can be expected 
from GEF, when, and under what conditions and also to assist with interfaces between the GEF 
effort and OKACOM. 
5. ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR A SUBSEQUENT USAID REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, POST-2008. 
 
5.1 Considering Alternative Possible Futures
This is a time of change for USAID, both in its policies and procedures for managing 
development assistance and in its thinking about regional programs; and the upcoming 2008 
national election in the U.S. adds further uncertainties about agency practices and emphases in 
coming years. Obviously, this evaluation team cannot predict the future, but we suggest that the 
Mission and its partners think about the longer term as being surrounded by considerable 
uncertainties. One strategy is to develop robust general strategic directions that can be followed 
at any of several levels of support and within any of several institutional settings, rather than 
thinking at this particular time about specifics.
In that spirit, realizing a wide range of uncertainties and possibilities of relatively limited 
funding, we suggest a combination of: 
 (a) A continued focus on the Okavango River Basin (a very salient case where 
interactions between development and environmental objectives could threaten regional stability 
in the longer term). It is significant that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, in discussing 
urgent needs to strengthen adaptive capacities in Africa to reduce vulnerabilities to climate 
change, mentions water resource management as the example and cites two major river basins 
(the Nile and the Okavango) and two inland lakes (Victoria and Tanganyika). This indicates 
quite clearly how important the Okavango case is viewed from global and continental 
perspectives. 
20
 (b) Utilization of lessons learned from this case to strengthen regional stability in other 
river basins in Southern Africa. From a continuing focus on the Okavango, USAID can extend 
its contributions to river basin-related regional security in Southern Africa by working outward 
from a solid foundation in this vitally important base. 
Possible relationships between these activities and USAID’s new Foreign Assistance Framework 
are summarized in Appendix D. 
5.2 A Focus on Strengthening OKACOM’s Roles in Establishing Sustainable Regional 
Institutions for Future Water Resource Management and Transboundary 
Cooperation
A focus on effective transboundary communication and cooperation to avoid or mitigate 
possibilities for conflict is in line with shared policy goals emphasizing regional stability, and it 
is consistent with OKACOM’s purposes and intentions. For this focus, program and project 
priorities should consider the following kinds of assistance, all of which are appropriate to 
USAID’s missions and technical expertise. Activities would be refined by examining strategies, 
program plans, and project initiatives of other multilateral development assistance organization 
such as SIDA, GTZ, GEF, and SADC. In a sense, USAID would consider a menu of activities 
and contributions related to these topics, in close consultation with OKACOM, and pass that 
menu through a filter that considers priorities and activities of other donors – basing the program 
plan on technical subject areas not otherwise adequately covered and assuring broad coordination 
among the partners in order to develop a coherent collection of related activities in the basin. 
5.2.1 Extending Capacity-building to Technical Counterparts in Regional River Basin 
Management 
In all three riparian countries there is a need for capacity building, not only administrative 
capacity building for OKACOM but also technical capacity. In fact, institutional capacity 
depends heavily on individual technical capacity. In the Okavango basin, ongoing retirements of 
well trained senior staff, the allure of higher paying private sector jobs depleting the more junior 
ranks of the relevant organizations, and personnel shortages left in the wake of the war in Angola 
all contribute to current – and growing – capacity deficits. This need for capacity building was 
21
clearly articulated by most of the stakeholders we interviewed. There are needs at all levels and 
in all organizations – public, private, and nongovernmental – often transcending the practice of 
sending some individuals to standardized training course. Examples include water resource 
management, natural resource management, and data analysis and modeling, along with strategic 
planning, financial management, and public administration. 
5.2.2 Increasing Capacities for Regional Communication, Cooperation, and Conflict 
Avoidance 
In order to maintain regional stability in the face of possible tensions between development and 
environmental objectives in the longer term, it is important to increase capacities of OKACOM 
to resolve possible conflicts related to water resource management in the basin. This could 
include involvement of representatives of the three countries in simulation-based role-playing 
approaches to considering issues in different national interests related to possible courses of 
action, the development of plans and structures to be used in the event that differences of opinion 
arise, and improvements in data and analysis infrastructures for assessing impacts of possible 
actions (such as effects of up-river water withdrawals or sediment diversions of particular levels 
on biodiversity in the delta). 
5.2.3 Improving Data for Regional Water Management and Biodiversity Protection Decision 
Support 
Effective decision making for integrated river basin management and biodiversity protection in 
the Okavango depends on the availability of good data and the capacity to analyze the data to 
answer policy questions. Related needs include increasing access to existing records and 
improving capacities to monitor current and future conditions, along with associated technical 
training. 
For example, efforts to re-establish a complete gauging network in Angola and elsewhere in the 
basin and to develop a sustainable data collection system should be pursued. In Angola, there is 
also a need for more analysis of the tree species, an improved understanding of the biodiversity 
of the basin in general, and an assessment of the extent and types of uses made by local 
22
communities of resources found in Kuando Kubango. The use of remote sensing, particularly 
satellite imagery, should be developed (remote sensing is particularly useful in a context where 
travel is difficult and expensive). Selective ground-truthing coupled with intelligent analyses 
will support the upscaling of knowledge of distributed phenomena at a reasonable cost. This 
knowledge will improve a basin scale understanding of the Okavango in ways that will be highly 
useful to decision-makers in considering possible threats to regional stability. Efforts should be 
made to ease remaining sensitivities about the use and sharing of imagery; the benefits of using 
these techniques far outweigh the perceived risks. 
5.2.4 Developing Effective Regional Collaboration at a Provincial Scale in the Okavango 
Basin 
OKACOM, the OBSC, and the Secretariat are 
necessary for high-level management of the 
basin, because decisions about water and benefit 
sharing will be taken at this level. The work of 
the ERP and IRBM to promote the 
improvements in the lives of community 
members and develop effective civil society at 
local levels are also vital to the management of 
the basin, and there is a need to improve 
communication among these groups. As such, 
National Coordinating Units (NCU) are being set 
up in each country, and support for these 
institutions to facilitate participation and 
dialogue between the residents of the basin and 
the commission would be very useful. Inasmuch 
as the basin is remote from the capital of each 
country (Figure 1), each NCU will require a 
presence or focal point in the basin. Trust and 
understanding among the three NCU focal 
FIGURE 1. Okavango Basin Map. Mendelsohn, 
J.M.& S. el Obeid. 2004. Okavango River: the flow of 
a lifeline. Struik, Cape Town. 29 p
23
points, linked with basin residents in all three countries, is essential to a willingness to work in 
concert for mutual benefit. Communication among the basin NCU focal points across national 
boundaries, as well as communication between the basin and the riparian country’s capitals, 
should be encouraged and facilitated. 
The value of a provincial-scale approach to trans-boundary river basin management, along with a 
national-scale approach, illustrates a more general point: that effective management, rooted in a 
sense of shared benefits and responsibilities, requires attention to roles and views at multiple 
geographical scales, in some cases including local scales (where, for example, many day-to-day 
judgments about how to integrate development considerations with environmental considerations 
are made: (see box). Without local-support for basin-wide management policies, the success of 
those policies is likely to be at risk. 
The value of a provincial-scale approach to trans-boundary river basin management, along with a 
national-scale approach, illustrates a more general point: that effective management, rooted in a 
sense of shared benefits and responsibilities, requires attention to roles and views at multiple 
geographical scales, in some cases including local scales (where, for example, many day-to-day 
judgments about how to integrate development considerations with environmental considerations 
are made: (see box). Without local-support for basin-wide management policies, the success of 
those policies is likely to be at risk. 
24
TOWARD A MULTI-SCALE APPROACH TO CAPACITY BUILDING 
IN THE BASIN 
Recent studies of environmental policy decision-making and implementation provide strong 
support for an argument that involving both top-down and bottom-up elements, working at a 
range of geographic scales, is much more likely to be successful than working at a single 
scale. 
As a part of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2004, a 
regional study was conducted for Southern Africa, including three scales of attention and 
stakeholder involvement (Nature Supporting People: The Southern Africa Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment, Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2004): 
Africa south of the equator, the Gariep and Zambezi Basins, and a number of localities in 
those basins. The success of this project in combining different process understandings and 
stakeholder views at the three scales could contribute to strategies for incorporating local￾scale components in integrated river basin management programs in the Okavango in the 
longer run. 
5.2.5 Establishment of a Basin/Regional Capacity for Water Management and Biodiversity 
Research
An improved capacity for collecting and assembling data from the Okavango basin requires one 
further step in order to be useful for decision-making: analysis and modeling to connect the facts 
with policy questions and issues. For the longer term, this implies a need for a regional research
capacity as well as a regional data system capacity. One option within the basin could be the 
Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Center (HOORC), located in Maun and administered by 
the University of Botswana, which is an internationally known center for research on 
biodiversity conservation in the Okavango Delta, although its research would have to be 
substantially expanded and its linkages with Angola and Namibia substantially strengthened. If 
this strategy is not practicable, OKACOM and its partners should consider alternatives in order 
to meet a need for research to support decision-making, while at the same time meeting many 
needs for technical capacity-building. 
5.2.6 Enhancing Stakeholder Participation in “Shared Water Management” 
Development assistance agencies are increasingly committed to promoting, facilitating, and 
assisting stakeholder participation. USAID’s commitment is based on a more general set of 
25
policies of the U.S. government that emphasize (and often require) participative decision￾making. SADC has included stakeholder participation as an element of its protocol, and the 
community participation aspect of IRBM implies a similar interest on the part of OKACOM. 
This could be an objective where, without requiring large allocations of funding, USAID could 
have a significant positive impact on the “culture” of participative policy and decision-making 
for river basin management and natural resource management in the basin. 
5.3 Assisting OKACOM in Transferring Lessons Learned from its Experience with 
Integrated River Basin Management to Other Major River Basins in Southern Africa
The second focus is intended to utilize learnings from the Okavango basin case about river basin 
management, biodiversity protection, and related institution-building to support regional stability 
more generally in Southern Africa. We suggest two initiatives as starting-points. 
5.3.1 Strengthening Relationships between OKACOM and ORASECOM as a Prototype for 
Cross-Basin Regional Institutional Strengthening 
Given limited resources, it makes sense to strengthen relationships between OKACOM and other 
river basin organizations by starting with one prototype. We suggest that ORASECOM is the 
most attractive alternative. The two basins are relatively similar in their stage of institutional 
development and the scope of their trans-boundary issues. It would be productive to explore 
selected interlinkages between the two RBOs, including such possibilities of staff exchanges and 
secondment, perhaps beginning with visits and shared workshops that facilitate the development 
of personal relationships and the sharing of information and knowledge. Case studies and best 
practices from their two experiences could published to assist other basins in the work of 
establishing their commissions and managing their water resources. 
26
5.3.2 Organizing and Conducting Annual River Basin Organization (RBO) Meetings as a 
Focus for Sharing Lessons Learned 
Support to River Basin Organizations is a clear priority within SADC. This priority would 
benefit significantly from a framework within which lessons and experiences can be shared 
among RBOs, in the context of strengthening relationships with SADC. The first RBO meeting 
(section 3.1.1.3) was a demonstration of one approach to meet this need; and it should be 
followed by further such meetings, where the purposes and agendas of such meetings are refined 
through practice to become ever more useful. USAID support could include both assisting in 
meeting organization and design and, at least equally important, assisting with follow-ups with 
SADC, where conclusions or recommendations emerging from a meeting are institutionalized in 
policy and practice. 
============== ============ =============== 
Addendum: USAID distributed and posted the draft evaluation report in April, inviting 
comments from all interested parties. Comments from USAID reviewers were incorporated in a 
separate USAID summary and plan for implementing evaluation recommendations (see separate 
document). The only other comments received were informal, and consistently supportive of the 
program to date, and of the recommendations of the evaluation team both for the near term and 
longer term. –Chris Schaan, USAID 
============== ============ =============== 
Appendices 
A. Evaluation Statement of Work 
B. Evaluation Schedule and Activities 
C. Responses to Key Evaluation Questions 
D. Relationships between Recommended Activities and USAID’s Foreign Assistance 
Framework 
E. Individuals Consulted 
F. USAID Observations and Response to Evaluation Questions 
27
APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF WORK 
DRAFT 
Mid-Term, Programmatic Evaluation of USAID/Southern Africa’s Program to “Improve 
Management of Shared River Basins” 
27 December 2006 
Scope of Work 
I. Summary
Following two years of implementation under a new regional strategy for the environment sector 
focused on river basins and considering recent changes in the framework for U.S. foreign 
assistance, USAID wishes to conduct a participatory, programmatic evaluation process, to be 
completed by May 2007, to: (a) recommend actions to optimize the allocation of USAID 
resources toward achieving regional foreign assistance objectives under the ongoing program in 
the near term (2007-2008) and (b) identify activities appropriate for a follow-on regional USAID 
program to begin on or about September, 2008. 
 
II. Background
USAID/Southern Africa addresses trans-boundary 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) under the program that was designed and 
approved in 2004. All activities under this program are implemented by a contractor through the 
Okavango Integrated River Basin Management Project. At present, the contractor is ARD Inc., 
a.k.a. the implementing mechanism. 
A contract to support project activities was signed Sept 28, 2004, and field work began in 
November. The project is funded by USAID Southern Africa with approximately $7.3 million 
(as of Dec. 2006) over the four year period. It is to be completed by September 30, 2008. 
The project is coordinated 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, particularly the Sida (Every River Project-ERP and OKACOM strengthening) and UNDP￾GEF (Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango-EPSMO) 
initiatives. 
Project inputs include logistical support, training, equipment and technical assistance to 
institutions and communities involved in the management and protection of river basin 
resources. Outputs include improved information and training that strengthens institutional and 
28
technical capacity for Okavango River Basin management in Angola, Namibia and Botswana. 
Expected results include strengthened institutions providing more effective services in support of 
regional river basin planning. And the desired impacts include biodiversity protection, conflict 
mitigation, and more efficient use of natural resources in support of sustainable development and 
poverty alleviation. The activities in the Okavango are designed to serve as a model for other 
river basins in the region where shared water, biodiversity and other natural resources are a 
concern. 
Additional activities with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) were 
established under a 2006 agreement to support mutual objectives including the sharing of best 
practices, data procurement and management for decision making, and conflict mitigation at a 
broader scale. 
The Program’s stated purpose is to “strengthen regional capacity to address trans-boundary water 
resource management issues and build consensus on allocation that supports sustainable 
development while protecting biodiversity.” Project components include: 
• Strengthening regional (SADC, River Basin Organization-RBO, and related 
organizations) capacity for dialogue, collaboration and conflict mitigation 
• Strengthening the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) 
• Community participation in natural resource governance and biodiversity protection 
• Data and information management to improve policy, legal, planning, and management 
decisions 
Planned Results (summarized, from the Performance Management Plan)1
: 
• Biologically important areas identified for improved management 
• Mechanisms for regional dialogue and collaboration in place (for selected RBOs) 
• Potential conflicts over shared water resources avoided or mitigated 
• Tools, procedures and human capacity in place for improved basin-wide planning and 
management 
• Projects that address basin-wide environmental threats and improve welfare 
implemented. 
• Secretariat for OKACOM established and providing effective regional services 
• Biodiversity and ecological services in the Okavango Basin conserved 
The project, through SADC and OKACOM, also collaborates with government ministries, active 
non-governmental organizations in the basin, communities, regional academic and research 
institutions, and businesses and local government institutions that use and manage the resources 
in the Okavango River Basin within Angola, Botswana, and Namibia. 
 
1
 Three important documents describe expected results and indicators – listed in order of precedence: (1) The new Operational Plan 
and standard indicators – in the future, foreign assistance programs will be asked to measure and report on results based on 
standard indicators provided by USAID for use on a global scale. (2) The approved USAID Performance Management Plan (PMP) 
which describes the results identified for use and monitored by USAID up to present; and (3) the Project Monitoring Plan, which the 
contractor proposed and USAID approved, to measure milestones and results on a broader and more detailed scale than the prior 
two documents. 
29
III. Evaluation Purpose
a) Recommend actions to optimize the allocation of USAID resources toward achieving the 
objectives of the ongoing program in the near term (2007-2008) and 
b) Identify activities most appropriate for a follow-on regional USAID program taking the 
following key Parameters into consideration. Any follow-on activities must have a clear fit in 
terms of: 
9 a “regional” program definition (see attachment) and 
9 USAID’s new Framework for Foreign Assistance 
(see http://www.state.gov/f/direction/ ) 
IV. Evaluation Scope 
The evaluation will focus on assessing progress toward improved management of the Okavango 
river basin, with emphasis on institutional strengthening and biodiversity conservation. As next 
steps are considered, particularly in light of the new U.S. Framework for Foreign Assistance, the 
benefits from maintaining continuity of existing initiatives need to be assessed and compared 
with other opportunities or approaches that could be more effective in achieving foreign 
assistance objectives for water management and biodiversity conservation from a regional 
platform. For the ongoing program, the evaluation will assess what will be required to achieve 
existing strategic goals and results, to the degree that they are still valid and appropriate for a 
USAID regional program. Any new activities will need to be justified within the constraints of 
expected future funding levels, USG policies, regional needs and priorities, while taking into 
consideration the plans and ongoing efforts of other international partners in related programs. 
The evaluation team will review available USAID documents including the original strategy, 
ARD contract as amended, Performance Monitoring Plans (new standard indicators, USAID 
PMP and Project-level plans), annual and strategic work plans, semi-annual and annual progress 
reports, financial reports, USAID Annual Reports for 2005 and 2006, the Operational Plan for 
2007-08, and other related assessments. An attached list of materials includes documents that are 
recommended for all team members to be familiar with, as well as other references that only 
some members may need to review to accomplish their scope of work. 
The evaluation team should review documents prior to field work to become familiar with 
project goals, actors, issues and relationships. The team will then conduct structured and 
unstructured interviews, site visits, and further analysis of documentation, in order to answer the 
evaluation questions and make recommendations for future adjustments in the program. Field 
visits are planned in Angola, Botswana and Namibia at a minimum, with particular emphasis on 
direct recipients of assistance (OKACOM, persons trained, entities receiving equipment, TA or 
other inputs). Interviews and financial reports by primary components from USAID’s 
implementing partner will assist in assessing costs versus benefits of the primary program 
interventions. 
30
All visits and interviews should be planned in advance and designed to respond to the terms of 
this SOW to enhance findings and recommendations. 
A separate document describes proposed team members and roles. The estimated LOE for the 
team co-leader, Mark Andreini, is 20 days; for the remaining team members, between 8-14 days 
LOE each. 
V. Key Evaluation Questions
2.1.a Are the original design assumptions and the logic of the SO framework still valid? Should 
they change to better reflect the existing circumstances in the region and USAID’s new 
framework? If so, how? 
2.1.b Are clear and appropriate targets established for each metric category – process, inputs, 
outputs and results (see Sec. VIII below for specific sets of sub-queries)? Should targets be 
adjusted? If so, how? What progress is evident toward the established targets in each category? Is 
the project likely to meet valid targets by its completion date in September, 2008? 
2.2. What approaches and interventions that have been most effective in supporting achievement 
of the objective and planned results (see Sec. II)? 
2.3. Specifically, how have project activities impacted OKACOM and related organizations that 
affect river basin management? What changes are evident? What has been most effective in 
producing these changes? What realistic options and strategies could be pursued to enhance 
sustainability, and to institutionalize regional “benefits sharing” or payments for ecosystem 
services? 
2.4. Are any other noteworthy impacts (beyond the stated objective and planned results) 
evident? 
2.5. Could a different mix of activities, or a different approach, contribute more effectively or 
more efficiently to achieve the objective? How could future activities be adjusted to improve 
program performance, as defined in the approved USAID PMP? 
2.6. What are the comparative advantages of USAID as a regional cooperating partner in this 
sector? How do stakeholders perceive USAID’s activities in the sectors of regional water 
(shared river basin management) and biodiversity conservation? 
2.7. What specific adjustments, if any, are recommended for the ongoing program within the 
next 18 months? 
2.8. Looking to the future, what are the top priorities and gaps in assistance that are especially 
suited to regional interventions and USAID as a donor, for (i) improved management of shared 
31
river basins (ii) biodiversity conservation within the framework of river basin management and 
(iii) implementation of related SADC protocols? 
2.9. What is recommended for a follow-on program? What inputs and outputs should be 
targeted? What approach should be used? What mix of implementing partner(s) and institutional 
mechanisms would be most effective? 
2.10. Given the findings and recommendations from preceding questions, how can the transition 
from the present project to the recommended follow-on phase best be completed? 
[Note: USAID may modify or add points to consider, based on stakeholder inputs to this draft 
SOW and evolving guidance from Washington regarding the new Foreign Assistance 
Framework and the role for regional platforms.] 
VI. Evaluation Approach
The evaluation approach shall reflect USAID development principles to the greatest degree 
possible, within the constraints of time and funding. Relevant principles include: (a) 
ownership—promote local stakeholder participation throughout the process; (b) capacity￾building—involve local institutions in a manner that transfers technical skills; (c) sustainability 
and selectivity—identify approaches that produce enduring impacts; (d) partnerships—insure 
close collaboration with implementing partners, USAID Missions, other donors and 
stakeholders; and (e) results—focus limited resources to achieve clearly defined, measurable and 
strategic results2
. To this effect, USAID/Southern Africa developed the evaluation scope in a 
consultative process, inviting input from the Mission’s partners and customers – especially 
OKACOM, SADC, bilateral Missions and embassies in Angola, Namibia and Botswana, and 
ARD Inc. The evaluation team will work in a manner that continues to reinforce a transparent 
and consultative approach. 
Integrating technical assistance with local ownership and capacity-building are fundamental to 
support USAID’s core goal for “transformational development.”3
 
Therefore, broad stakeholder input should be sought to help identify opportunities to better 
achieve results and adapt USAID program activities to changing circumstances in the region. 
VII. Coordination with Other Cooperating Partners and Stakeholders
Future opportunities, and identifying an appropriate regional niche that optimizes impacts and 
results from USAID/Southern Africa interventions, will depend in great part on how well 
USAID’s efforts mesh and complement those of other cooperating partners. Other cooperating 
 
2
 USAID Principles of Development and Reconstruction Assistance, from USAID Policy home page, 
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/2005_nineprinciples.html (PPC, 2005). However, these may be revised under the new framework for 
foreign assistance (see below). 
3
 USAID’s Policy Framework for Bilateral Foreign AID promotes transformational development as a core goal and defines it as: 
changes in governance and institutions, human capacity, and economic structure that help countries sustain progress while 
reducing poverty, promoting gender equality, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving other Millennium Development 
Goals on a lasting basis. http://www.usaid.gov/policy/policy_framework_jan06.pdf 
32
partners and stakeholders to be consulted include USAID Missions and Embassies within the 
scope of the program, and other donors with basin-wide initiatives such as the Environmental 
Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin Project (EPSMO) 
financed by the UNDP-Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), the Every River Has Its 
People Project (ERP) supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 
(SIDA), and IUCN’s regional programs related to biodiversity and water. USAID central offices 
for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade (EGAT), the U.S. Forestry Service, and U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation should also be consulted. 
This evaluation could coincide with the next planned OKACOM meeting or a SADC- WSRG 
meeting. Since such meetings are relatively rare, if possible, team plans should be adjusted to 
allow for interaction with these stakeholders, such as presentations of preliminary evaluation 
findings and conclusions. 
VIII. Analytical Approach
An analytical approach to evaluation used by the National Research Council4
 includes 
assessment against four categories of metrics. A clear statement of targets in terms of these four 
metrics is required for successful program monitoring and evaluation. The evaluation team will 
determine the degree to which targets for these metrics are reflected in program documentation, 
as well as the progress achieved to date toward them. In each case, the evaluation will consider if 
and how future activities should be adjusted to improve performance in consideration of these 
metrics. Analysis using these metrics will assist the evaluation team to articulate and categorize 
specific program elements for future improvement or for follow-on efforts. The four metric 
categories are: 
ƒ Process Metrics (measure a course of action taken to achieve a goal) 
ƒ Input Metrics (measure tangible quantities put into a process to achieve a goal) 
ƒ Output Metrics (measure the products and services delivered) 
ƒ Results/Outcome Metrics (measure results that stem from use of the outputs and 
influence stakeholders outside the program) 
Each is described in terms of specific measures below (adapted from NRC5
) 
Process Metrics: 
1. Project leadership with sufficient authority to allocate resources, direct project 
interventions and facilitate progress toward goals. 
2. A multi-year plan that includes goals, focused statement of tasks, and implementation 
plans that integrate inputs, outputs and results. 
3. A functioning peer review process involving all appropriate stakeholders in place (a) with 
documentation of proposed processes and timetables (b) participation in periodic 
 
4
 Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for the Climate Change Science Program. 
Committee on Metrics for Global Change Research, Climate Research Committee, National Research 
Council (2005); National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; Internet 
http://www.nap.edu 
5
 Ibid. 
33
assessments of progress toward achieving program goals, and (c) an ability to revisit the 
plan in light of new information, changing circumstances and input from stakeholders. 
4. A strategy for setting priorities and allocating resources among different elements of the 
program (including those that cross components) and advancing the most promising 
avenues to achieve results. 
5. Procedures in place to facilitate the use and understanding of outputs and results by 
others, and to promote lasting partnerships. 
Input Metrics (measure tangible quantities put into a process to achieve a goal) 
1. Sufficient and appropriate personnel (number and types) to achieve the results. 
2. Sufficient commitment of other resources (infrastructure, financial, equipment, logistical 
support) to allow the planned program to be carried out. 
3. Geographic allocation of resources appropriate to implement plans and maximize outputs 
and results. 
4. Sufficient resources to promote the development of sustainability through: (a) human 
capital; (b) data collection, measurement and interpretation systems; (c) transition to 
permanent institutional homes; and (d) services that build constituencies and enable the 
use of data by relevant stakeholders. 
5. The program takes advantage of existing resources (e.g., does not duplicate other related 
projects, builds on past experiences, applies available studies and data; takes advantage of 
existing organizations, operating modes, infrastructure…) 
Output Metrics (measure the products and services delivered) 
1. The program produces broadly accessible results, such as (a) data and information, (b) 
lessons learned, (c) new and applicable measurement techniques, (d) decision support 
tools, and (e) well-described relationships that improve common understanding of 
processes and/or enable forecasting. 
2. Training activities reached the right people, and provided the right skills, to effectively 
further performance in achieving results. 
3. Adequate institutional arrangements were identified and strengthened to support 
continuation of relevant activities. 
4. Appropriate stakeholders see value in the services provided; outputs are considered 
useful to inform future management and policy decisions. 
5. Results are communicated to an appropriate range of stakeholders. 
Results Metrics (measure results that stem from use of the outputs and/or influence 
stakeholders beyond direct recipients of the program). These are based on the “results” 
documented in the project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (see the PMP for numerical targets 
that were established for most of these measures): 
1. Biologically important areas identified for improved management 
2. Mechanisms for regional dialogue and collaboration in place (for the Okavango Basin) 
3. Potential conflicts over shared water resources avoided or mitigated 
34
4. Tools, procedures and human capacity in place for improved basin-wide planning and 
management 
5. Projects that address basin-wide environmental threats and improve welfare 
implemented or are underway 
6. OKACOM is operational and providing effective regional services 
7. Biodiversity and ecological services in the Okavango Basin being conserved 
8. Institutions and human capacity strengthened to better address river basin management 
issues. 
9. Results being applied and having the desired impact on regional, national and local 
planning and development activities. Specifically, results being used (a) to mitigate 
conflicts, (b) alleviate poverty, and (c) support decision making and analysis that 
improves allocation of water and conservation of ecosystem services.6
IX. Data Requirements and Sources 
USAID is assembling a list of documents to be made available to the evaluation team. The team 
will have access to USAID project files, including the original strategy, the implementing partner 
contract (as amended), Performance Monitoring Plans (both USAID and IRBM Project), 
reporting plans, annual and strategic work plans, semi-annual and annual progress reports, 
consultant reports, financial reports, and recent evaluations and assessments of related projects. 
The evaluation will review plans, progress reports, and other data sources, including field 
verification, to compare status with targets and indictors. The team should be familiar with recent 
USAID policy directives and definitions (especially those related to the new foreign assistance 
framework, its standard performance measures, and what is “regional”) and other relevant 
documentation. Inputs from existing stakeholders (especially OKACOM, parties trained, and 
parties involved in the project kick-off workshop) and other cooperating partners working in the 
sector will be obtained via interviews, field visits, and correspondence. The SADC Water 
Division, Water Sector Reference Group (WSRG) and SADC biodiversity protocol coordinator 
will be consulted during the evaluation process. 
 
X. Mechanisms for stakeholder input and levels of participation 
1) Evaluation Team Members: Include regional representatives from USAID and another 
donor. The team will review documents, conduct interviews and site visits, complete the 
assigned SOW, present draft findings and reports. 
2) Evaluation Oversight Committee: These are key contacts for team members. The 
oversight committee will review and comment on the evaluation SOW and preliminary 
draft reports prior to releasing them for public comments. The Oversight Committee will 
 
6
 Given the recent initiation of the program (two-years ago), it is too early to assess “impact metrics” (that measure the long-term 
societal, economic, or environmental consequences of an outcome) – However, in terms of follow-on plans and future design, it is 
important to keep impact metrics in mind. In the future, such impact metrics could include: (a) results of the program have informed 
policy and improved decisions; (b) results benefited society in terms of enhancing economic vitality, promoting environmental 
stewardship, protecting life and property; (c) public understanding of integrated water resource management, conservation of 
ecosystem services and biodiversity has increased. It may take decades 
to fully assess substantial contributions from a regional program such as this that focuses on institutional strengthening at the levels 
of SADC and RBOs. 
35
be chaired by USAID project manager (Schaan) and will receive progress reports, offer 
suggestions to resolve issues encountered during the process, and guide evaluation 
process to successful completion. 
3) Expanded team and collaborating partners (OKACOM, SADC) and stakeholders: Open 
invitation to review and comment on draft outputs. These are interested parties who will 
receive direct mailings of the draft documents for public comment. 
4) Other interested stakeholders: Suggestions are welcomed throughout the process 
described here to improve program results and achieve evaluation goals. IRBM 
stakeholder list and newsletter will direct people to webpage as draft documents are 
released for comment. At any time, interested parties may send comments to 
klinekl@ornl.gov and/or cschaan@usaid.gov 
Public communication tool: Draft and final documents (SOW, progress and evaluation reports) 
will be shared on the USAID/Southern Africa web page to facilitate opportunities for review and 
comment: http://rcsa.usaid.gov 
XI. Evaluation Team, Roles, Schedule, Budget (see separate documents)
27
APPENDIX B. EVALUATION SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIES 
October 2006 – January 2007: Evaluation planning, suggestions and comments collected from 
partners, other donors and stakeholders on draft scope of work; review and approval of final 
scope 
January – February 2007: Planning by evaluation team, coordination regarding schedules, 
appointments for visits arranged 
February 28, 2007: Attend OBSC task force meeting, Pretoria 
February 28 – March 3, 2007: Field visit and meetings, Namibia 
March 4 – March 9, 2007: Field visit and meetings, Angola 
March 10, 2007: Meeting of team with McCormick/ARD in Johannesburg 
March 11, 2007: Full team meeting in Gaborone 
March 12: Meeting with USAID/Southern Africa 
March 12 – 14: Meetings in Botswana 
March 15: Debrief and presentation of draft findings at USAID 
March 16: Report writing 
March 17: Team departure from Botswana 
March 19: Draft evaluation report submitted to USAID 
May 3: Revised draft evaluation report submitted to USAID 
36
APPENDIX C. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS (Team Response)
In Section V, the Statement of Work for this evaluation activity listed ten key evaluation 
questions. In general, the list of questions anticipated a more detailed formal project evaluation 
than was possible with the limited time and resources allocated. As a result, in many cases, the 
team is unable to provide the kinds of specific answers that seem to be requested, because we 
believe that our knowledge of the details of the project is insufficient to support knowledgeable 
responses. Here are our general answers to the questions: 
1.a Are the original design assumptions and the logic of the SO framework still valid? Should 
they change to better reflect the existing circumstances in the region and USAID’s new 
framework? If so, how? 
The original problem statement and objectives of SO 17 and other project documents were and 
remain valid. As the SO framework is reviewed, changes might be appropriate to reflect both the 
fact that some of the project’s responsibilities for OKAKOM are coming to an end, an evolving 
additional focus on a smaller range of services might be appropriate, and future activities need to 
be aligned with USAID’s new framework (see section 5). 
1.b Are clear and appropriate targets established for each metric category – process, inputs, 
outputs and results (see Sec. VIII below for specific sets of sub-queries)? Should targets 
be adjusted? If so, how? What progress is evident toward the established targets in each 
category? Is the project likely to meet valid targets by its completion date in September, 
2008? 
In general, the indicators included in the current SO framework are appropriate, but they tend 
sometimes to be questionable from an outcome/results-oriented project evaluation perspective. 
Such statements as “number of organizations engaged” and “number of entities strengthened” are 
grounded in terms that are open to interpretation and might be reviewed to see if alternatives 
would be more informative about progress toward project goals. Our general impression is that 
the project is likely to meet most of its stated targets by its completion date, but we question 
whether in every case these targets are good measures of project purposes. It is arguable, of 
37
course, that indicators should be framed in such a way that some flexibility is maintained in 
implementing them through relationships with partners. 
2.a What approaches and interventions have been most effective in supporting achievement 
of the objective and planned results (see Sec. II)? What has been spent on each 
component and administration of the project, compared to results from each? What were 
in-kind contributions from collaborating partners, and how effective has this been? 
We lack information to provide a detailed answer to this question. It is our impression that, 
responding to requests from regional partners for assistance, especially OKACOM, the primary 
focus of the project in its first two years was on strengthening OKACOM through taking steps to 
establish a Secretariat; and results from this effort have been impressive (see 3.2.1.1 above). 
Measurable progress for other project components – in the sense of tangible development 
outcomes – was more limited, in part because of demands for time and resources in support of 
this primary focus but in larger part because the project is only about two years old. Regarding 
relationships with collaborating partners, see 3.2.1.5. Regarding allocations of funding, partial 
accounts from ARD indicate that about 60 percent of the funding has been devoted to regional 
programs (OKACOM). Of the remaining support, about two-thirds has been focused on Angola, 
with approximately equal support for Botswana and Namibia. About 60 percent of the total 
funding was for management and technical assistance, cutting across the other categories. 
2.b What has been the distribution of project benefits among participating countries? How 
has each country and its riparian population gained from the project, training, internship 
opportunities, etc.? 
See the answer to the previous question. A majority of the effort has been aimed at strengthening 
OKACOM as a regional institution. Among the three countries that share the Okavango River 
Basin, a special effort has been made to provide benefits to Angola through community 
participation element as a step toward demonstrating that a regional approach can mean “shared 
benefits” for the water-source country as well as water-destination countries. 
38
3. Specifically, how have project activities impacted OKACOM and related organizations 
that affect river basin management? What changes are evident? What has been most 
effective in producing these changes? What realistic options and strategies could be 
pursued to enhance sustainability, and to institutionalize regional “benefits sharing” or 
payments for ecosystem services? 
Project activities have been vitally important in establishing a Secretariat for OKACOM and 
moving that responsibility from an interim status within IRBM toward a functional part of 
OKACOM (see 3.2.1.2). In general, the approach has been to be a service provider, asking 
OKACOM and related regional organizations what they need and attempting to respond to those 
needs. Regarding sustainability, which is a significant challenge, see 3.2.2.1. 
4. Are any other noteworthy impacts (beyond the stated objective and planned results) 
 evident? 
Yes. See 3.2.1. The evaluation team did not have sufficient time and resources to visit some of 
these activities in the field; but many kinds of intended impacts, such as discernible changes in 
river basin management or discernible changes in biodiversity protection, do not appear this 
early in the project’s lifetime (nor were they expected). 
5. Could a different mix of activities, or a different approach, contribute more effectively or 
more efficiently to achieve the objective? How could future activities be adjusted to 
improve program performance, as defined in the approved USAID PMP? 
Regarding future activities beyond the current horizon of the implementing agreement in 2008, 
see section 5. Regarding activities between now and 2008, see section 4, which suggests that the 
mix of activities be adjusted both to recognize the transfer of the OKACOM Secretariat 
responsibility and to move toward the emphases suggested for the period beyond 2008. 
39
6. What are the comparative advantages of USAID as a regional cooperating partner in this 
sector? How do stakeholders perceive USAID’s activities in the sectors of regional 
water (shared river basin management) and biodiversity conservation? 
In general, the approach of the project and of USAID’s program has been to emphasize broad￾based collaboration with partners rather than competition based on comparative advantages. In 
technical roles, most donors have access to the same pool of international expertise; so roles of 
individual donors depend on the priorities of their sources of funding and their leaderships. It 
appears that comparative advantages of USAID in the 2004-2006 period have included the 
presence and availability of the sizeable ARD team, a focus on responding to OKACOM and 
other regional/national requests for assistance, flexibility as needs and contexts have changed, 
and an agency interest in biodiversity conservation. Looking to the future, it is possible that the 
interests of the U.S. government in such objectives as regional stability and such topics as 
stakeholder participation might be contributions to a multi-donor collaboration that would be 
different from other donors. 
7. What specific adjustments, if any, are recommended for the ongoing program within the 
next 18 months? 
Recommended program strategies and actions are summarized in section 4, although we do not 
believe that we are in a position to be very specific. 
8. Looking to the future, what are the top priorities and gaps in assistance that are 
especially suited to regional interventions and USAID as a donor, for (i) improved 
management of shared river basins (ii) biodiversity conservation within the framework of 
river basin management and (iii) implementation of related SADC protocols? 
Recommendations for the longer term are summarized in section 5, somewhat refocused on 
different issue statements related to USAID’s new Framework for Foreign Assistance. 
40
9. What is recommended for a follow-on program? What inputs and outputs should be 
targeted? What approach should be used? What mix of implementing partner(s) and 
institutional mechanisms would be most effective? 
See Section 5 for general recommendations. We are not in a position to be specific about 
implementation approaches, which would be grounded in USAID agency polices and 
implementation mechanisms. 
10. Given the findings and recommendations from preceding questions, how can the 
transition from the present project to the recommended follow-on phase best be 
completed? 
See section 4, which suggests that the remaining months of the current project be specifically 
related to an evolution toward emphases in the subsequent phase. 
41
APPENDIX D. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RECOMMENDED 
ACTIVITIES AND USAID’S FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FRAMEWORK. 
We understand that these activities must be related to USAID’s new Foreign Assistance 
Framework. Based on very limited information provided about the scopes of program elements 
and sub-elements, we offer ideas in a box below. Note that most sub-elements relate to either or 
both natural resource and biodiversity management. 
Recommendation USAID Sub-Elements 
5.2.1 Technical Capacity Building 
8.1.2 Sustainable NRM and Production 
8.1.3 Biodiversity Policy and Governance 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
8.1.6 Science, Technology, Information 
5.2.2 Increase Capacity For 
Communication, Collaboration, and 
Conflict Avoidance 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
5.2.3 Data For Regional Water and 
Biodiversity Decision Support 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
8.1.6 Science, Technology, Information 
5.2.4 Regional Collaboration at a 
Provincial Scale for Local Planning 
and Development 
8.1.2 Sustainable NRM and Production 
8.1.3 Biodiversity Policy and Governance 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
5.2.5 Regional Systems For Water And 
Biodiversity Research And Analysis 
8.1.3 Biodiversity Policy and Governance 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
8.1.6 Science, Technology, Information 
5.2.6 Enhanced Stakeholder Participation 
In Shared (Water) Resource 
Management 
8.1.2 Sustainable NRM and Production 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
5.3.1 Cross Basin Regional Institutional 
Strengthening: OKACOM, 
ORASECOM 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
8.1.6 Science, Technology, Information 
5.3.2 Sharing Best Practices and Lessons 
Learned 
8.1.5 International Cooperation 
APPENDIX E. INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED 
OBSC committee meeting in Pretoria, 28 February 2007. 
Nik Sekhran, Regional Technical Advisor, Biodiversity/International Waters, Global 
Environment Facility (GEF) 
Akiko Yamamoto, Regional Portfolio Manager (International Waters), GEF 
Stephan de Wet and Laura Namene, Namibian Ministry of Agriculture, Water and 
Forests 
Piet Heynes, Director of Resource Management, Deptartment of Water Affairs, Namibia 
Shirley Bethune, IRBM in Namibia, and Barbara Curtis, forestry consultant 
Patricia Skyer and Sanath K. Reddy, USAID/Namibia 
Anntje Eggers, Hydrologist, Namibia Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forests 
Mr. Kahuure, (K) Permanent Secretary, Namibia Ministry of Agriculture, Water and 
Forestry 
W. M. Ndeutapo Amagulu, Permanent Secretary, Namibia Ministry of Veterans Affairs 
and OKACOM Commissioner 
Mwazi Mwasi, Namibia ERP Coordinator 
Shirley Bethune, Namibia IRBM Coordinator 
Piet Heynes, Under Secretary: Water Affairs and Forestry, Namibia Ministry of 
Agriculture, Water, and Forestry 
Cynthia Ortman, Hydrologist, Namibia Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Forestry 
Guido Van Langenhove, Head Hydrology Division, Namibia Ministry of Agriculture, 
Water, and Forestry 
Jonthan Hodgkins, ARD Senior Technical Advisor, Namibia 
Sem T. Shikongo, Deputy Director, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Namibia 
Ministry of Environment and Tourism 
Quinton Hammond, Chief Technical Assistant, Hydrology, MAWF 
43
43
Hartmut Krugman, Southern Sustainable Development Corporation, former leader of the 
GEF Okavango Project 
Gita Honwana Welch Angola Country Director, UNDP 
Gabriela Nascimiento, UNDP 
Mr. Manjolo, Vice Governor of Kuando Kubango Province, Angola 
Michael Nehrboss, Deputy General Development Officer, USAID/A 
Nervyb Farroe, Program Supervisor, USAID/A 
Alonzo Wind, Director, General Development Office, USAID/A 
Isidro Pinheiro, Angolan OKACOM Commissioner and OBSC Member. 
Carlos Andrade, Member of the OBSC 
Paulo Emilio Mendes, Senior Hydrologist, Angola Dept of Water Affairs 
Manuel Quintino, Regional Manager of GEF 
Gomes de Silva (GdS, Angola) 
Vladimir Russo, Head of the Angola National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan 
(NBSAP) 
Soki Kuedikuenda, Director Nacional de Recorses Naturales, Ministerio do Urbanismo e 
Ambiente 
Cristoph Asanzi, Manager for Agriculture and Natural Resources World Vision 
John Yale, Director of WV Angola 
Mustaque Ahme, Chief of Party, Municipal Development Program, CARE, Angola 
Tomas Pedro Caetano, Eengenheiro Florestal, Ministerio da Agricultura e do 
Desenvolvimento Rural, Instituto de Desenvolvimento Florestal 
Anthony Vodraska and others, USAID/Southern Africa 
Phera Ramoeli and Luis De Almeida, SADC Water Division 
Horst Vogel, GTZ Transboundary Water Management Programme for SADC 
44
44
Dr. Akolang Tombale, PS, Botswana Ministry of Minerals, Energy, and Water Resources 
Gabaake Gabaake, PS, Botswana Ministry of Local Government 
Anthony Woods, Regional Environmental Officer, US Department of State, Gaborone 
Appendix F. USAID comments and response to “Evaluation Questions” 
Note: this Appendix was added by USAID after the external evaluation was complete to 
reflect USAID Project Management views on key evaluation issues. It was not prepared 
by, presented by, or shared with the evaluation team. 
2.1.a Are original design assumptions and the logic of the SO framework still valid? 
 -- Not entirely. Some should better reflect the existing circumstances in the region and 
USAID’s new framework as follows: 
o An assumption that remains valid is that a regional USAID Program must work 
through regional counterpart organizations. Therefore, working with and through 
SADC in support of regional priorities and implementation of the Protocols that 
are in place for shared watercourse and wildlife (biodiversity), is an appropriate 
approach. 
o One early assumption was that the most appropriate approach to “improving 
shared river basin management” is through OKACOM and similar RBOs. While 
these entities have an important role, it would make more sense to first more 
precisely define what you intend to “improve” with regards to “river basin 
management” and then look for the most effective way to make that 
improvement. Given the regional legal framework and roles defined in Protocols 
and founding multi-national agreements, RBOs will certainly be involved in the 
process. But they may not always be the best counterpart for leading an effort to 
improve management. 
o Significant internal inconsistencies hampered clarity of program goals and 
direction under the original design. The initial design documents assumed a focus 
on OKACOM and IRWM, but the program was funded with a biodiversity 
earmark that should focus effort more on conservation. Activities funded by the 
earmark must meet strict criteria for “biodiversity protection.” The evolution of 
work plans, the PMP and revised SO Framework (2005) attempted to ameliorate 
this issue and increased focus on addressing the key threats to biodiversity in the 
basin. Meanwhile, USAID has been constantly adjusting and redefining its 
strategic framework, regional role, program objectives and standard indicators, 
requiring further design adjustments. This constant change in the demands for 
reporting and guidance from Washington has been detrimental, and impacts the 
original design assumptions. 
o The strategy and structure of the program should be revised to fit the new USAID 
Framework for Foreign Assistance (Natural Resources and Biodiversity Element), 
regional criteria, and develop more specific goals than “improved management.” 
The Mission may need to promote more appropriate definitions for regional 
programs and indicators (e.g. regional cooperation) in the new USAID 
Framework and reporting structure. If funding is reduced in the future, more focus 
will be needed regarding goals. 
46
46
2.1.b Are clear and appropriate targets established for each metric category: 
(i) process [no], 
(ii) inputs [needs improvement], 
(iii) outputs and (iv) results (see Sec. VIII below) 
Should targets be adjusted? If so, how? 
(i) The program should set and track “process metrics” for key factors relevant to 
achieving results: local leadership and local “champions” to provide continuity 
and ownership; a multi-year plan that is recognized and applied; peer review 
processes; systems to adjust resource allocation to better achieve results 
(although, this evaluation is an important tool for that); and procedures for sharing 
outputs while building lasting partnerships. 
(ii) Clear input targets were not established in an appropriate manner – e.g. linked 
to outputs and activity components. The program could probably benefit from 
identifying and strengthening appropriate constituencies so that skills (services) 
supported by project inputs are more responsive to needs. Several personnel 
challenges – especially the delays and difficulties in hiring and maintaining 
effective Angolan country coordinator, and lack of direct IRBM project presence 
at both field and institutional (Luanda) levels—reflect a lack of ability to meet 
input targets. A large percentage of total funding went into the IRBM “project 
office” – an artificial and temporary construct, rather then long term institutional 
counterparts that could offer more sustainability. For example, the program could 
increase the involvement of universities in all 3 nations, and other local 
institutions, in workshops, studies and training, rather than relying on short term 
external consultants. Counterpart governmental institutions need local sources of 
support if they are to achieve sustainability. 
(iii) Outputs – as contractually defined the project is “on track” for most outputs 
as of Sept06 (SAR) and May/07 (evaluation). The identification of “stakeholders” 
and how they value services could be improved. The evaluation team lacked the 
time and resources (and the program lacked sufficient maturity) to assess whether 
outputs were truly effective and efficient in reaching desired results and 
outcomes. 
(iv) Results – Nine results were defined (as enumerated in the SOW for the 
Evaluation under “results metrics” pg. 8). Some were over-ambitious compared to 
funding and project time frame. Reflections on status for each as listed in the 
SOW, as of Nov 2006: 
1. Biologically important areas identified for improved management: 
-Making good progress toward some useful results, but with limited 
geographic scope because the area is huge compared to resources. Much 
more could be done if program is broadened or continued. 
47
47
2. Mechanisms for regional dialogue and collaboration in place (for selected 
RBOs): 
-Greatly improved compared to pre-project status/trends. 
3. Potential conflicts over shared water resources avoided or mitigated: 
-Some progress made – but efforts toward this important goal need better 
documentation (ARD is committed to track this result per Monitoring and 
Evaluation Plan; but has not submitted the required reports). The IRBM 
team needs to improve reporting to comply with approved PMP and M&E 
Plan. 
4. Tools, procedures and human capacity in place for improved basin-wide 
planning and management: 
-Progress has been made, but the concept of basin-wide planning and 
management needs clarification in terms of: (a) what is reasonable to 
attempt, (b) by whom, and (c) how best to do that. 
5. Projects that address basin-wide environmental threats and improve welfare 
implemented or underway: 
-Progress apparent in Mucusso transboundary area, but this could be 
further expanded. Any community work needs to be more integrated with 
regional (basin wide) environmental issues and the prioritized, regional 
efforts to address them. The community work under a regional program 
must be designed as a supporting activity for regional work, not as an end 
in and of itself. 
6. OKACOM is operational and providing effective regional services (Secretariat 
for OKACOM established): 
-Lots of effort invested in this, and showing some results. But more 
institutional development required for OKACOM to reflect some of the 
“operational and providing effective services” goals. This might be better 
classified as an output, rather than a result. 
7. Biodiversity and ecological services in the Okavango Basin conserved 
-This is an over-ambitious long-term goal, and is required due to the 
dependence on biodiversity earmark funds. 
8. Institutions and human capacity strengthened to better address river basin 
management issues: 
-This process has begun, but will be much longer-term than this project. 
9. Results being applied and having the desired impact on regional, national and 
local planning and development activities. Specifically, results being used (a) to 
mitigate conflicts, (b) alleviate poverty, and (c) support decision making and 
analysis that improves allocation of water and conservation of ecosystem services 
48
48
-This is a valid, long-term, “outcome” scale result. Measurable impacts for 
this result cannot be expected in the 4-year time frame of the initial 
project. However, these results come from the strategy, which originally 
was to run through FY 2010. 
2.1.c What progress is evident toward the established targets in each category? [see SAR 
reports] Is the project likely to meet valid targets by its completion date in September, 
2008? [see comments above] 
It is good to review the second question periodically with IRBM and stakeholders. 
“Will we meet the targets before the end of the project?” 
2.2.a (i) What approaches and interventions that have been most effective in supporting 
achievement of the objective and planned results (see Sec. II)? 
Analysis of SARs sheds some light on this. It seems that some of the regional 
activities on the ground such as hydromet and biodiversity appear relatively more 
cost-effective in terms of useful and lasting results. While SARs and other reports 
provide data on progress, a final evaluation will be needed to judge the 
relationship between that progress and the overall objectives and final results. 
(ii) What has been spent on each component and administration of the project, compared 
to results from each? 
Detailed financial analysis by component is not available because the budget was 
not structured to provide it (The IQC mechanism uses a contract that reimburses 
for “time and materials”). There were estimates for budgets by component in 
Work Plans. The work plans for the first two years indicated that component (1) 
OKACOM - received the most funding, followed by (3) community work 
(including sub-agreements with World Vision and ACADIR). Component (2), for 
information systems, technical training related to water and biodiversity, initially 
had the lowest budget. Because it seemed effective in contributing to desired 
results, efforts were made by USAID to realign the budget to provide more 
support to component 2. These efforts led to contract amendments so that the 
three components are expected to have similar budgets in the third year of 
activities. 
There may be a perception issue that “a majority of the funds are being spent in 
Gaborone and on OKACOM-Secretariat.” Is that valid? How best to address it? 
(iii) What were in-kind contributions from collaborating partners, and how effective has 
this been? 
This question was raised by Namibia. This program did not attempt to quantify 
“in-kind contributions,” partly because it would have been too difficult to define 
and monitor. In general, the cooperative plans made with partners, including other 
49
49
donors, were useful. And despite bumps in the road, they worked or are working 
well in several cases (Sida-Secretariat coordination; GEF on hydromet). 
2.2.b What has been the distribution of program benefits among participating countries? 
How has each country and its riparian population gained from the project, training, 
internship opportunities, etc.? 
The IRBM team provided an estimate. But it depends on how you define 
“benefit.” In the big picture, even if the project had spent every penny in Angola, 
down stream nations could be the primary beneficiaries if the investments 
improved the availability and quality of water over the long term. 
2.3. Specifically, how have project activities impacted OKACOM and related 
organizations that affect river basin management? What changes are evident? What has 
been most effective in producing these changes? What realistic options and strategies 
could be pursued to enhance sustainability, and to institutionalize regional “benefits 
sharing” or payments for ecosystem services? 
These changes have been described in SARs. For OKACOM, one important 
change was a growth in understanding among delegations regarding issues that 
had blocked progress in the past, such as misconceptions about procedures and 
the proposed secretariat. Better translation and facilitation helped resolve some of 
these. 
2.4. Are any other noteworthy impacts (beyond the stated objective and planned results) 
evident? 
-Yes: 
a) The regional collaborations via task forces (data management, sediment flows, 
biodiversity); 
b) Promoting donor coordination and collaboration via structured meetings, 
assigning roles, co-funding arrangements and a common matrix for activities; 
c) Supporting Angola to engage effectively in regional planning and programs – 
not only OKACOM, but forestry, KAZA, and others; 
d) Supporting Angolan efforts to complete and initiate implementation of NBSAP 
with regional linkages; and helping them initiate field work for forest inventories 
and management in trans-boundary area. 
2.5. Could a different mix of activities, or a different approach, contribute more 
effectively or more efficiently to achieve the objective? How could future activities be 
adjusted to improve program performance, as defined in the approved USAID PMP? 
Less focus on “Secretariat” per se, and more focus on assisting OKACOM to 
provide services in fulfillment of its mandate. Better allocation of resources to 
achieve jobs at hand. 
50
50
2.6. What are the comparative advantages of USAID as a regional cooperating partner in 
this sector? How do stakeholders perceive USAID’s activities in the sectors of regional 
water (shared river basin management) and biodiversity conservation? 
Compared to GEF, the flexibility, responsiveness and timeliness of USAID 
support (provided through a contractual implementing partner) seemed to be 
sincerely appreciated by all partners. 
2.7. What specific adjustments, if any, are recommended for the ongoing program within 
the next 18 months? 
Focus on whatever is necessary for a smooth transition to the next “phase” of 
USAID support in this sector. Provide continuity. 
2.8. Looking to the future, what are the top priorities and gaps in assistance that are 
especially suited to regional interventions and USAID as a donor, for (i) improved 
management of shared river basins (ii) biodiversity conservation within the framework of 
river basin management and (iii) implementation of related SADC protocols? 
 
 See below. 
2.9. What is recommended for a follow-on program? What inputs and outputs should be 
targeted? What approach should be used? What mix of implementing partner(s) and 
institutional mechanisms would be most effective? 
A follow-on program should: (a) respond to clear and strong regional 
needs/priorities; (b) comply with USAID biodiversity funding criteria; (c) fit the 
"regional definition"; (d) build upon the best aspects of the existing program and 
relationships, and (e) respond to USG-STATE priorities in the region. Perhaps 
continuity such as – “Enhanced management of the Okavango Basin that sustains 
biodiversity and ecosystem services while improving livelihoods for target 
populations.” 
 
This could promote participatory, equitable and transparent processes for land use 
planning, policies and multi-sector investments in wildlife management and 
conservation-based tourism. To balance local priorities with the criteria for 
USAID biodiversity funding, it needs to promote economic development while 
reducing threats to sustainability and biodiversity; e.g. It could address issues of 
unregulated/inappropriate land and water use that impact quality and flow regimes 
(water and sediments). The effort would focus on getting results that favorably 
impact people and the environment, while respecting, working under the auspices 
of , and utilizing when appropriate, regional institutions (SADC, OKACOM, 
KAZA? Others?). 
 
51
51
This approach allows Sida to continue the institutional support for OKACOM, 
and GEF-EPSMO (FAO) to continue with their project to develop a management 
plan, while defining a separate but complementary niche for USAID. 
A note regarding USAID terminology: “Project” versus “Program”
Many people use “program” and “project” interchangeably – which is ok. But FYI, in this 
set of comments, ”Project” refers to what was contracted with ARD Inc. and 
implemented by a team under the name, “Okavango Integrated River Basin Management 
Project” or IRBM. 
“Program” refers to the broader USAID Regional Environmental Program (formerly 
known as S.O. 17, Improved Management of Shared River Basins). The Program is on a 
different (longer) time frame than the project. The Program is based upon a Regional 
USAID Strategy Statement, USAID Foreign Assistance Framework, and includes 
USAID management and evaluations, SADC relationships (separate agreement, also 
longer than IRBM), etc. 
In this particular case, while USAID could use multiple mechanisms to implement a 
program, it has relied solely on the IRBM project as the implementing partner, so there is 
not a significant distinction between project and program when it comes to execution.