Kalahari Namib project: Enhancing Decision-making through Interactive Environmental Learning and Action in Molopo-Nossob River Basin in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa
PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL INCEPTION MEETING
22 – 23 March 2011, Pretoria
Prepared By Cathrine Mutambirwa and Irene Hungwe
IUCN Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa
P a g e | 2
Table of Contents
Kalahari Namib Project Regional Inception Meeting Proceedings ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 4 Introduction ...... 6 Day 1: Tuesday 22 March ...... 8 1 Welcoming Remarks/Official Opening ...... 8 2 Introductions ...... 8 3 Background to the KNP Project and GEF Project Development Process ...... 8 4 KNP Project Objectives and Key Activities ...... 9 4.1 Plenary Discussion Summary ...... 11 5 Presentation of the Project Implementation Arrangements/Modalities including Roles and Responsibilities ...... 11 5.1 Report Back and Plenary Discussion ...... 13 6 Presentation of Proposed Regional Implementation Arrangements ...... 13 6.1 Group Discussion Questions ...... 14 6.2 Group Report Back ...... 14 6.3 Plenary Discussion...... 16 7 Presentation on Project Budget and Capturing/Recording of Finance...... 17 7.1 Plenary Discussion...... 17 8 Presentation of Year 1 Workplan ...... 18 8.1 Group Work ...... 18 8.2 Group Report Back on Year 1 Workplans ...... 19 8.3 Plenary Discussion...... 22 Day 2: Wednesday 23 March ...... 23 9 Recap from Day 1 ...... 23 10 Presentation of Experiences from Regional Projects and Opportunities for Collaboration . 23 10.1 The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project ...... 23 10.2 Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE) ...... 24 10.3 SCI-SLM Project Overview ...... 24 10.4 Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana ..... 25 11 Gaps in the Baseline Studies ...... 25 11.1 Group Work ...... 26 P a g e | 3
11.2 Report Back on Group Work ...... 26 11.3 Plenary Discussion...... 28 12 Next Steps ...... 28 12.1 Dates for National Inception meetings ...... 28 12.2 Proposed Project Management Structure ...... 29 12.3 Reporting ...... 29 13 Closure ...... 30 List of Annexes ...... 31 Annex 1: Meeting Agenda ...... 32 Annex 2: List of Participants...... 35 Annex 3: The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project ...... 37 Annex 4: Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE) ...... 39 Annex 5: SCI-SLM Project Overview ...... 43 Annex 6: Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana ...... 45 Annex 7: Kalahari Namib Knowledge and Information Gaps ...... 47
P a g e | 4
Kalahari Namib Project Regional Inception Meeting Proceedings
Executive Summary The Kalahari Namib Regional Inception Meeting was convened from 22 – 23 March 2011 in Pretoria, South Africa. The meeting was attended by government delegations from each of the three participating countries namely Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, representatives from UNEP, ORASECOM, IUCN and Regional Projects working in the project area.
The main objectives of the Inception Meeting were:
1. Clarify and agree on Project Management arrangements a. Clarify the project implementation arrangements/modalities including roles and responsibilities b. Agree on implementation arrangements at the Regional level c. Agree on capturing/recording of co-finance 2. Schedule immediate activities a. Identify gaps in the baseline studies carried out during the project preparation phase b. Share experiences and lessons from Regional Initiatives in the project area c. Plan for the National Inception Meetings
The first day of the workshop focused on clarifying the project objectives and implementation arrangements. Presentations and discussions were held on the background to the project, the objectives and key deliverables, the roles and responsibilities of the project partners and the project budget and co-financing arrangements. The first year workplan was also discussed in detail.
The main outcomes of the first day was the need to develop agreements between IUCN and the project government focal ministries to ensure that roles and responsibilities are articulated, understood and implemented and also to ensure that co-finance by the Government departments is adequately captured.
The second day of the workshop started with the sharing of experiences from regional projects and opportunities for collaboration. Presentations were made on the following projects: The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE) SCI-SLM Project Overview Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana
Gaps in the baseline studies were also deliberated on during the second day.
Actions items and corrections to the project document agreed on include: P a g e | 5
Correction 1 to project document - The project National Focal Department is the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Implementing Department is Department of Agriculture (DAFF & PDACMC). Correction 2 to project document - There is need to correct the Ministry stated on Pg 32 paragraph 108 and pg 40 paragraph 141 to Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism Action Item 1: SCI/SLM project will share its ToRs for its Project Steering Committee Action Item 2: Government of Namibia have experience in capturing co-finance and were requested to share their methodology with IUCN for discussion with the other countries. Action Item 3: A significant date to be noted was 18 June – World Day for Desertification Action Item 4: It was agreed that all administrative issues should be dealt with between April and June 2011 Action Item 5: It was proposed that a Regional meeting should be convened in the 3rd quarter to address component 3 Action Item 6: IUCN was requested to pick out regional activities and share these with the countries Action Item 7: Each country to provide a write up on institutional arrangements for project implementation to assist in the development of the agreements between IUCN and the three countries Action Item 8: IUCN was requested to develop the Project Website and a project pamphlet Action Item 9: Gaps in the Project Baseline studies will be identified during the national inception meetings Action Item 10: Water Management is by a different department and they were not involved in this meeting therefore it is important that they are included in the National Inception meetings
The workshop was wrapped up with preliminary agreement to convene national inception meetings during the third and fourth week of June 2011 where the project will be launched and national workplans for the first year discussed. The Meeting was closed by a representative from the Government of South Africa.
P a g e | 6
Introduction
Land degradation and loss of productivity occur throughout the SADC region, often because successful efforts are limited to pilot areas. Documentation remains with projects, with limited dissemination to decision-makers. In many moderately successful efforts, a sectoral rather than a holistic approach is undertaken, often involving demonstration sites rather than participatory, interactive learning, usually confined within countries. Despite talk about coordination and participation, inter-sectoral and transboundary coordination usually is focused on logistics rather than concepts and action. Transboundary ecosystems face the additional challenge of joint decision making by the countries involved. Within SADC, several joint water commissions and transfrontier parks are already developing joint management initiatives to address the management of shared natural resources. The Kalahari/Namib project is dealing pertinently with joint management to combat desertification at all levels from national government to communities.
The project forms part of the larger Kalahari-Namib Action Plan for the sustainable management of the Kalahari-Namib ecosystem that was inaugurated in 1989. The overall goal of the Kalahari-Namib project is to support communities and policy makers in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to effectively implement and upscale sustainable land management (SLM) in the Molopo-Nossob basin area and thereby contribute to improved livelihoods and the maintenance of the integrity and functioning of the entire Kalahari- Namib ecosystem.
In order to achieve the overall goal, the project consists of five major components, namely: Component 1: Baseline Assessment; Component 2: Community-based SLM (including pilot demonstration of best practices) and Trans-boundary Management of Molopo-Nossob River Basin; Component 3: Enhanced Regional Decision-Making and Exchange of Best Practices and Lessons Learnt; Component 4: Income Generating Activities Supported by Improved Services; Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation, and Component 6: Project Management.
The Kalahari-Namib project is dealing specifically with joint management to combat desertification at all levels from regional to national government to communities. Active participation of all decision-makers responsible for the joint management of natural resources is a prerequisite for sustainable development. This includes the involvement of all stakeholders, decision makers and policy makers, within and between all three countries. The approach to be used is a trans-boundary, basin-wide, cross-sectoral approach, based on a sound knowledge of the biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of the basin, and involving key stakeholders from all decision making levels. The project will also remove barriers at regional level to sharing of experiences and up-scaling of sustainable land management practices throughout the Kalahari-Namib ecosystem. In support of this view, the interventions of this project will focus on decision-makers (including land users and local people) at all levels and use of Interactive Environmental Learning and Action approach.
P a g e | 7
The Kalahari Namib project is being executed by IUCN- ESARO (Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Office) in collaboration with Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism (Botswana), Ministry of Environment & Tourism (Namibia), and Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Affairs (South Africa). The project will be implemented over 48 months from April 2011.
This report provides the proceedings of the Kalahari Namib Regional Inception Meeting convened from 22 – 23 March 2011 in Pretoria, South Africa.
P a g e | 8
Day 1: Tuesday 22 March
1 Welcoming Remarks/Official Opening Hastings Chikoko, Head of Office IUCN South Africa
Hastings thanked the implementing partners of the Kalahari Namib Project for attending this crucial meeting and encouraged all present to take stock of “what” had informed the project and “how” best implementing partners of the project can organise themselves. He highlighted that it was crucial that partners use the inception meeting as a platform to share ideas, perspectives and insights on the shared vision of the project and how best it can be implemented. He added that IUCN was embracing an ecosystem/landscape/catchment approach involving all the countries that will jointly manage the shared river basin. Namibia, South Africa and Botswana are the three countries that share the Molopo-Nossob river basin and through this project these three countries will exchange common problems, ideas and find solutions in the management of this common basin aimed at combating land degradation and desertification and enhance the livelihoods of the communities that are dependent of this dryland ecosystem.
The main objectives of the inception meeting were to:
1. Clarify and agree on project management arrangements including defining the roles and responsibilities of the partners and agree on capturing/recording of co-finance; 2. Schedule immediate activities – reflect on the gaps, challenges and issues identified in the project preparation phase and ensure that the project does not duplicate what other projects have already captured. The meeting was also going to share experiences and lessons from regional initiatives in the project area and agree on the date and time for the national inception meetings.
Hastings concluded by tabling the meeting agenda which was approved by all the participants.
2 Introductions Following the welcome remarks all participants were invited to introduce themselves and the institution they represented. The meeting participants included government delegations from each of the three participating countries namely Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, representatives from UNEP, ORASECOM, IUCN and Regional Projects working in the project area.
3 Background to the KNP Project and GEF Project Development Process Mohamed Sessay, Senior Programme Manager, UNEP
Mohamed provided the background and history to the project from its conceptualisation by SADC ELMS through the 10 year journey it took to its final approval with funding of US$2,175,000 from the GEF Trust Fund. Mohamed outlined other projects that have been working in the Kalahari Namib and encouraged interaction and open exchange of information with these projects. UNEP as the GEF implementing agency for this project would support IUCN in the monitoring and evaluation of the project and remained highly confident in the success of the project as a good example of integrated land and water resources management.
P a g e | 9
4 KNP Project Objectives and Key Activities Jonathan Davies, Drylands Technical Coordinator, IUCN
Jonathan highlighted the rationale of the project which aimed to contribute to land degradation and desertification understanding and challenges. The project would also address coordination and cooperation challenges between development partners and sectors within countries and narrow, project-specific & ad-hoc approaches which have failed to address the cross-sectoral nature of land degradation and systematically tackle its root causes. The specific focus of the project was on transboundary ecosystem management between Botswana, Namibia and South Africa.
The project fitted within the GEF-4 land degradation focal area strategy and contributed to (SO2): up scaling of SLM investments that generate mutual benefits for the global environment and local livelihoods. The project complemented UNEPs on-going support to Africa, especially implementation of the NEPAD Environment Action Plan.
The development objective of the project was to support communities and policy makers in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to effectively implement and upscale SLM in the Molopo- Nossob River Basin in order to significantly contribute towards improved local livelihoods. The environmental objective was to maintain the integrity and ecological functioning of the entire Kalahari-Namib Ecosystem.
Jonathan outlined the 6 components of the project and outcomes of each component:
Component Outcomes Outputs Component 1 – Increased understanding of Integrated database Baseline Assessment NRM/SLM issues by policy makers, Baseline report (inventory, analysis local communities and institutions A communication strategy and prioritization of Enhanced delivery on SIP IR 4 on SLM opportunities and generation and dissemination of challenges targeted knowledge and establishment of strengthening of monitoring and evaluations systems at all levels for SLM scale up. Component 2 Community-based INRM/SLM in Increased area (up to Community-based SLM Molopo-Nossob River Basin through 800,000 ha) under (including pilot establishing of participatory improved management of demonstration of best planning processes that ensure wide land and biodiversity practices) and ranging engagement including local A functioning Transboundary government buy-in - Transboundary multistakeholder and cross- Management of Management of Molopo-Nossob border SLM forum Molopo- Nossob River River Basin through strengthened basin collaboration Enhanced delivery of SIP IR 1 on scaling up of SLM applications on the ground in country-defined priority ecological zones
Component 3 Enhanced understanding and Decision support tools Enhanced Regional decision making on SLM scale up by A functioning Decision-Making and policy makers, communities and Transboundary Molopo- P a g e | 10
Exchange of Best institutions Nossob River Basin Practices Enhanced delivery of SIP IR 2 on Committee promoting effective and inclusive A report of impact of dialogue and advocacy and enabling national and local policies policy conditions for SLM scale up. and planning on SLM/INRM An M&E&A mechanism to promote SLM/INRM scaling- up and impacts Component 4 Enhanced Livelihoods Provision of alternative Income Generating Enhanced access to appropriate income generation from Activities Supported by services for SLM Scale-up SLM/INRM sources Improved Services Enhanced delivery of SIP IR 3 on A functioning multi-country strengthening of commercial and forum promoting SLM scale advisory services for SLM and up making them readily available to A functioning micro-grant/ land users. revolving funds Component 5 Monitoring and evaluation of the Monitoring & project will be conducted in Evaluation accordance with established procedures laid out in the GEF’s ‘Minimum Requirements for Project M&E and will be provided by the Project management Unit that will be established at IUCN ESARO (the Executing Agency) specifically to oversee and coordinate implementation of the project. The Project Results Framework (Appendix 2) will form the basis for the project’s monitoring and evaluation system. See Appendix 5 on Pg 72 of Project Document Component 6 Project Project efficiently managed and Project Management Management implemented within the agreed structures and processes time frame established and functioning efficiently
Jonathan concluded by making reference to the meeting objectives which Hastings had previously elaborated on in his welcome remarks as follows; 1. Clarify and agree on Project Management arrangements i. Clarify the project implementation arrangements/modalities including roles and responsibilities ii. Agree on implementation arrangements at the Regional level iii. Agree on capturing/recording of co-finance 2. Schedule immediate activities i. Identify gaps in the baseline studies carried out during the project preparation phase ii. Share experiences and lessons from Regional Initiatives in the project area iii. Plan for the National Inception Meetings
P a g e | 11
4.1 Plenary Discussion Summary
Questions were raised following the presentations and the key issues discussed were as follows: The project budget was not sufficient to procure expensive infrastructure therefore the role of the project should be to link communities to national development planning processes, other related or complimentary projects with infrastructure budgets as well as build on existing infrastructure e.g. infrastructure supplied through the Landcare project in South Africa. The project should link up with existing and on-going projects in the region such as NEPAD RAC SLM Project, WOCAT (global project). It was important to identify and upscale existing good community-based approaches in SLM. The identification of good community-based approaches is a key activity in Component 1 - baseline assessment. However concern was raised on the budget allocation to baseline studies considering that baseline studies were already produced during the project development phase. It was highlighted that the intention was not to do detailed studies again. However there was a need to take stock of any changes since the finalisation of the baseline studies. There were also gaps that the baselines were not able to fill. With regards to the project impacts on the ground and direct benefits to the communities it was highlighted that the project will be participatory and it would take into consideration the needs of the communities by using tools that will allow the communities to identify and map out their resources and identify issues that need to be addressed. The national inception meeting should be used as a platform to discuss these community-based approaches. It was noted that Component 4 of the project on income generating activities aimed at improving the livelihoods of the communities through the provision of grants. Clear processes and guidelines would be established as well as selection criteria that would eliminate any potential conflicts that could cause any rifts in the communities. It would be vital that communities have a say in the process and take ownership of the project by being allowed to formulate their own plans. It was anticipated that this project would leave something on the ground that communities would be able to continue with after the project resources are exhausted. To demonstrate its commitment in partnering with other projects, IUCN highlighted its work with an ORASECOM UNDP funded project in the implementation of activities in the Botswana project site through the EC co-financing. There was a need to link up with Government institutions which are a vital source of funds and strive on building capacity of communities to access material and resources. It was noted that a lot of projects were producing good data which could be used in the KNP project e.g. data on water reticulation, fencing and the predator challenge. An example was shared by one of the projects where awareness, training and capacity building were the three most important factors highlighted by farmers in recently held workshops.
5 Presentation of the Project Implementation Arrangements/Modalities including Roles and Responsibilities Cathrine Mutambirwa, Senior Program Officer, IUCN
Cathrine referred participants to the project document (Pg 39 & 97) which stipulated the project implementation arrangements as follows:
P a g e | 12
Country Focal Department Implementation Botswana Ministry of Environment, Department of Forestry and Wildlife and Tourism Range (Department of Environmental Resources Affairs) Namibia Ministry of Environment and CPP Implementation Unit Tourism (with (National Ministry of Lands and Steering Committee and other Resettlement and Ministry governing structures already in of Agriculture, Water and place) Forestry) South Africa Department of Agriculture - Northern Cape Department of National and Agriculture, Land Reform and Provincial (Northern Cape Rural Province) Development Regional Component Regional coordination group (will consists of representatives of national focal points, UNEP, key experts)
National Focal Points (NFPs) and National Field Officers (NFO’s) appointed at the start of the project would implement and coordinate intra-country activities: Ideally NFPs and NFO’s would be located in a government department that has major responsibilities for sustainable land management issues; It would be the task of the NFPs and NFOs to bring together all institutions and organisations that are interested in sustainable land management such as government departments, national research institutions, universities and training institutions, national and international NGOs, etc; Country activities would be implemented by national institutions or experts appointed by IUCN on the advice of the SPO, the Project Officer and the NFPs.
National Focal Point would: Participate in implementation of the project and monitoring of project workplan; Report to Project Coordination Unit; Sit on National and Regional Steering Committee; Take the lead in maintaining national and local government relationships and ensure participation and buy in; Provide guidance on institutionalisation of policy and practice within government.
National Field Officer would: Participate in day to day implementation of the project and monitoring of project workplan; Report to Project National Focal point; Sit on National Steering Committee; Take the lead in maintaining local government relationships and ensuring participation and buy in; Provide guidance on institutionalisation of policy and practice within government
National Project Steering Committees (NPSC) would be established in each of the participating countries to guide the implementation of the project at the national level. P a g e | 13
The NPSC would review project implementation and provide technical guidance to project management and ensure that national level activities are implemented in line with the approved workplans. The NPSC would be responsible for national representatives to participate in Regional Forums.
Following the presentation by Cathrine, Country delegations were requested to review the implementation arrangements and confirm the arrangements in the project document.
5.1 Report Back and Plenary Discussion
South Africa Correction 1 to project document - The project National Focal Department is the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Implementing Department is Department of Agriculture (DAFF & PDACMC). National Field Officer will be from Siyanda District as referred to on pg. 20 of Project Document National Steering Committee composition and roles will be discussed at National Inception Meeting
Namibia There is no major diversion to what is proposed in the project document. There are already existing structures e.g. National Steering Committee (meets quarterly); Governing body of Permanent Secretaries of 8 Ministries (meets twice a year); Ministers Forum (meets twice a year); sub working groups e.g. Integrated Natural Resource Working Group and Regional Joint Committees Project implementation will be through the Ministry of Environment The Field Officer will sit in the Office of Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
Botswana The focal department and implementation department are correct in the project document The National Steering Committee will be comprise DFRR, DEA, and the Kgalagadi District TAC which comprises various departments relevant to the project (e.g. Local Enterprise Authority, Botswana Tourism Organisation, Department of Tourism, Wildlife, and Landboard among others) Correction 2 to project document - There is need to correct the Ministry stated on Pg 32 paragraph 108 and pg 40 paragraph 141 to Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism There is no national NGO that has been identified, however there is a possibility that Kalahari Conservation Society maybe engaged A Drylands expert from the University of Botswana supported the project development phase.
6 Presentation of Proposed Regional Implementation Arrangements Cathrine Mutambirwa, Senior Program Officer, IUCN
Cathrine presented the proposed regional implementation arrangements as follows:
P a g e | 14
A Regional Transboundary Management body would be established between the three participating countries to strengthen collaboration and improve regional management of natural resources during execution of the project.
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) would be established to provide technical and methodological expertise to the project at national and regional level. o The TAG would advise the Project Management Unit on implementation problems that emerge and ensure the technical soundness of the project outputs.
A Project Steering Committee (PSC) would be established to guide the implementation of the project. o The PSC would review project implementation and provide technical guidance to the project management and ensure that the project is implemented in line with the approved workplans. o The PSC would review and evaluate the objectives and outputs of the project during implementation as well as respond to emerging issues as they arise.
IUCN was the Executing Agency for this project in partnership with three countries. o IUCN would constitute a regional project coordination unit as well as perform the SADC liaison function. o The Project Regional Coordination Unit comprised of technical and administrative staff will manage the day-to-day implementation of the project.
UNEP, as the GEF Implementing Agency for this project would co-ordinate the activities of partners, technical and scientific expertise and enhancement of regional cooperation. o Transfer of financial resources needed for execution of the project; approval of expenditures on activities; o Membership of the policy/steering committee and various advisory groups (e.g. M&E Special Advisory Group, SAG; KM SAG, etc.) of the project; o Monitoring and evaluation of execution and output performance in consultation with IUCN; o Commission mid-term and final evaluation of the project; o Ensure co-management of funds.
6.1 Group Discussion Questions
1. Are the proposed structures appropriate? 2. Are there any regional structures that exist that the project can use? 3. Advise on means of engagement and roles and responsibilities?
6.2 Group Report Back
Group 1
Are the proposed structures appropriate?
Regional Transboundary Management Missing link = river basin committee at local level P a g e | 15
o Communities have own body that are sharing information o may also be represented in R/N PSC’s These river basin committee may need to be formed Q: What national level basins exist in relation to this area? Q: What local level catchment committee exist?
TAG - example: SCISLM How TAG formed; roles + responsibilities Could ask experts from different universities from 3 countries to be involved o technical persons who can advise Regional PSC – What level do we want representation? for Namibia use existing PSC which has Directors Director level from within Ministries For civil societies – CEO’s
2. Are there any regional structures that project can use?
Regional Transboundary Management Body ORASECOM - link with to avoid duplication + share structures TAG Share TOR’s for SCI-SLM project PSC OKACOM has PSC – look at their structure
3. Advise on means of engagement + roles & responsibilities?
TAG liaising with national focal point and implementing office PSC Meets once per year including a field tour – rotates between countries Teleconference in between if there are additional issues.
Regional Transboundary Management Body Through ORASECOM: and national basin bodies But how to link (parallel) with district/community level committees? Look at Volta example Communities need to have a voice on management of resources Look at management of resources across boundaries Benefit sharing across borders
P a g e | 16
Group 2 Report Back
IUCN,
UNEP TMB
Technical Advisory Body Baseline Assessments
PSC PSC PSC Namibia South Botswana Africa
Namibia South Botswana day to day Site Africa Site Site activities
. Transboundary management board could be short term . The baseline studies could be used to advise on which are the best approaches to take . For example the TMB could be absorbed in National PSC. The methodology used should be comparable amongst the three countries . There is need to workshop the Protocol for the Transboundary Management Body and there is also a need to ensure a good flow of information . There is need to avoid having numerous committees if there are no funds available for such activities i.e. links should be created with existing bodies such as ORASECOM
6.3 Plenary Discussion . Technical Advisory Group (TAG) – Group 1 wanted to understand if this structure had been formed and its roles and responsibilities? It was clarified that some of these roles were articulated on Pg 76 of the project document. . There was need to consider the costs of experts from the 3 countries . Action Item 1: SCI/SLM project will share its ToRs for its Project Steering Committee.
P a g e | 17
7 Presentation on Project Budget and Capturing/Recording of Finance Cathrine Mutambirwa (IUCN) and Mohamed Sessay (UNEP)
Cathrine presented the project budget as reflected in the project document:
Project Components Indicative GEF % Indicative % Total ($) Financing* ($) Co- financing* ($) 1. Baseline Assessment 273,549 35 500,000 65 773,549 (inventory, analysis and prioritization of SLM opportunities and challenges)
2. Community-based SLM 812,549 29 2,006,360 71 2,818,909 (including pilot demonstration of best practices) and Transboundary Management of Molopo-Nossob River Basin
3. Enhanced Regional Decision- 413,049 43 550,000 57 963,049 Making and Exchange of Best Practices
4. Income Generating Activities 345,549 19 1,500,000 81 1,845,549 Supported by Improved Services
5. Monitoring and Evaluation 130,000 45 156,000 55 286,000 6. Project management 200,304 41 287,640 59 487,944
Total project costs 2,175,000 30 5,000,000 70 7,175,000
Mohamed further explained the funding cycle of GEF projects and the co-finance requirements for GEF projects. Although US$2,175,000 was approved by GEF, the total co-finance committed to the project is US$5,000,000 which represents 70% of the total cost of the project of US$7,175,000.
He highlighted the importance of capturing co-finance and informed participants that contributions such as salaries and benefits are considered cash contributions as well as operational expenses such as travel, fuel, vehicles.
7.1 Plenary Discussion
Questions and discussions following the presentations focused on the following:
It was clarified that the project was approved under the GEF 4 project cycle GEF funds cannot be used to co-finance another GEF project/programme IUCN is responsible for capturing all expenses under the project and need to enter into Agreements with the three governments on how they can record and submit they co-finance P a g e | 18
contributions to IUCN which will have to submit a final expenditure statement to UNEP. It was also noted that the project will be audited. Action Item 2: Government of Namibia have experience in capturing co-finance and were requested to share their methodology with IUCN for discussion with the other countries. It was clarified that the budget was prepared per component and activity using the UNEP budget lines and not by country.
8 Presentation of Year 1 Workplan Cathrine Mutambirwa, Senior Programme Officer, IUCN
The Meeting was taken through the year 1 workplan for each component. Activities to be implemented during year 1 for example are as follows:
COMPONENT 1: Baseline assessment (inventory, analysis and prioritization of SLM opportunities and challenges
Sub - Component 1.1: Baseline assessment of SLM issues at all stakeholder levels (policymakers, local communities and institutions)
1.1.1 Literature review and baseline surveys using participatory approaches in the 3 countries and at Regional level to establish status and trends, identify gaps and challenges and documentation of existing innovations
1.1.2 National and Regional stakeholder consultations and endorsement of baseline by all stakeholders
1.1.3 Establishment of community aspirations and visions through community visioning exercises
1.1.4 Production of national baseline reports and integrated regional baseline report and definition of clearly defined, measureable indicators for monitoring
8.1 Group Work
Group Discussion Questions
1. Do you agree with the year 1 activities? 2. When can they be carried out? 3. Ideas on who can/will carry out the activity?
P a g e | 19
8.2 Group Report Back on Year 1 Workplans
Botswana
Activity When Who Comp 1: Baseline Assessment
1.1.1 Lit. Review + Baseline Yes-Compiling Existing Consultant done in collaboration with Studies Into +Filling In Gaps District Field Officers + TAC (CI Project) (Ongoing) UNCCD-NAP + NBSAP 1.1.2 National + Regional Yes (Ongoing Ongoing – During Inception Meeting + Stakeholders Consultations Country Meeting 1.1.3 Community Asp. + Ongoing IUCN, Govt, Trust +Communities Visions 1.1.4 Production Of Existing Under UNCCD + Consultant In Collaboration With Sanbi- National Baseline Ndp10 Quantitative Not (RSA) + Project Officers Prais-Portal- Done (Immediate) (UNCCD) 1.2.2 Guidelines On PP + Ongoing (Baruti) IUCN+ National Project Officers, Monitoring Community Action Strategy-MFDP 1.2.3 Community Strategy Immediate (2nd Quarter) IUCN - (CEC) 1.2.4 Repackaging Baseline 4th Quarter IUCN - (CEC) 1.2.5 Lesson Learnt Ongoing(As And When All Stakeholders There Comp 2: Community Based SLM
2.1.1 (Move To Lit. Review) 2.1.2 Cap. Building Already Started Botswana (NCSA) Project IUCN + Project Staff 2.1.3 Dev Of Capacity To Be Informed By 2.1.2 IUCN + Project Staff Building 2.1.4 Identification Of Sites Already Done DFRR DEA Local Extension Officers Boravast + Khawa 2.1.5 Community Baseline Continuous (Tie Ti Univ Of Leeds (Manuals) Consultant M & E & L Indicators) 4th Quarter Univ Of Taxes (DFRR) Namibia-Govt, IUCN,Trust 2.1.6 Community Training IUCN, Govt Consultant Comp 3: Enhanced Regional Decision Making & Exchange Of Best Practices
3.1.1 Commission Policy & Part F Lit. Review IUCN, Govt, Local Extension Officers Institutional Analysis 3.1.2 Dev Of Appropriate 4th Quarter Consultant Decision Support Tools IUCN/Govt 3.1.3 Capacity Building And 1st Quarter Training Year 2 3.2.1 Establishment & End Of 4th Quarter All Participating Partners (Bot, Nam+ RSA) Implementation Of Annual Regional Forum
P a g e | 20
3.2.2 Mobilise Political 3rd Quarter Link To Community Strategy Support 3.2.3 Convene Regional 4th Quarter If Needed Community Strategy To Inform This Stakeholder Platforms Activity Comp 4: Income Generating Activities
4.1.1 Commission Analysis LEA – How Far With Study & Feasibility Study 4.1.2 Cap Building + Ongoing IUCN Training On Project (Started On February Gout Management And 2011) Relevant TAC Members Implementation 4.1.4 Provision Of Grants In Each Country 4.2.1 Assess Available Local Part Of Lit. Review Local Extension Officer & External Capacity IUCN/ Govt. 4.2.2 Identify Training & Linked To 4.2.1 Capacity Building Needs & Dependent On The Identify Appropriate Activities To Be Options Prioritised Comp 5: Monitoring And Evaluation
5.1.1 Inception Workshop Happening Now IUCN/Govt. 5.1.2 Add National 2nd Quarter DEA/DFRR (June) 1st Quarter (IUCN) 5.1.3 Financial Reports Every Quarter Local Govt. 5.1.4 Project Implementation Review 5.1.5 Progress Reports
South Africa
Agree When Who 1.1.1 Yes Done partly 1.1.2 Yes Done partly 1.1.3 Yes Done partly 1.1.4 Yes Done partly
1.2.2 Yes Partly done DEA + DAFF {1.2.3 – 1.2.5} – To have a By June 27,28,29 &30 in workshop on Baseline study Kimberly {2.1.1 – 2.1.5} To be part of the Combine National inception above mentioned workshop in workshop with the workshop in Kimberly Kimberly 3.1.1 Exchange of best practices at Regional level 3.1.2 3.1.3 Have to identify the groups. Come up with a criteria on the selection of the group P a g e | 21
3.2.1 To go together with the Towards Nov/Dec AZEF conservation forum on 3.2.3
3.2.2 To engage with the new political party
3.2.3 Forum for conservation Oct/Nov/Dec – 2012 in the Prof Kellner; Arid Zone Ecology (AZEF) region Forum - AZEF {4.1.1-4.1.4} A study to be Consultant? conducted If info does not exist or is being worked on {5.1.1 – 5.1.6} Leave out Do not agree with the timeframe {6.1.1 – 6.1.3} Leave out {4.2.1 – 4.2.3} Check our country reports
Namibia
Identify gaps 1.1.1 Desktop 1.1.2 Combined with Inception (5.1.1) 1.1.3 Feedback of results of baselines to community & visioning 1.1.4 IUCN to integrate CPP works with CSO in regions 1.2.2 Guidelines developed into Qtr 3 (NH Field officers (community & national); IUCN + Partners in TAG) 1.2.3 Update the existing communication strategy (CPP-ISLM Namibia) 1.2.5 It’s too early – transfer to Year 2
Component 2 2.1.1 Identify best practices from all sources Linked with 1.1.3 (visioning) – by field officers + TAG (contribute best practices) Lead - Senior technical advisor in CPP-ISLM project 2.1.2 Use existing capacity building assessment and action plan – CPP-ISLM May need to include awareness raising for the political level 2.1.3 Modify to KNP project terminologies 2.1.4 Done together with 1.1.3 2.1.5 Use LLM &SDI and add indicators 2.1.6 Where necessary
3.1.1 Already done in Namibia - took 2 years; sensitive process 3.1.2 Countries identify participants for regional negotiations (negotiate and use share toolkit) 3.1.3 Consultancies procured by IUCN – for development of material and training
3.2.1 IUCN organize 3 countries to participate along with other regional partners 3.2.2 Continuous and integrate (opportunistically) into Minister’s forum, etc. Communication and outreach officer – CPP-ISLM 3.2.3 Facebook page etc P a g e | 22
4.1.1 Use existing information CPP-ISLM IGM (no consultants) 4.1.2 Already on-going this could be used to have more numbers trained 4.1.3 Should be continuous 4.1.1 Should be in the 3rd quarter
4.2.1 Implemented by CPP-ISLM assisted by IUCN 4.2.2 Update with IUCN 4.2.3 Update with IUCN
6.1.2 Explore ways of getting a vehicle loaned to the KNP. Maintained by KNP fuel etc. 6.1.4 IUCN should send us MoU ASAP for endorsement 6.1.5 Already existing in CPP-ISLM 6.1.7 Use TAG, IUCN to inform. Should be used by other institutions/projects as well and not project alone 6.1.8 Implemented by CPP-ISLM together with IUCN. Having a common understanding across – constituency 6.1.9 Learning by doing formats 6.1.10 Field officers, focal persons, IUCN
8.3 Plenary Discussion
South Africa indicated that their local government elections were scheduled to be held on 18 May Action Item 3: A significant date to be noted was 18 June – World Day for Desertification Action Item 4: It was agreed that all administrative issues should be dealt with between April and June 2011 South Africa proposed to have their national inception meeting at the end of June for 2 – 3 days in Kimberly Botswana proposed to have their meeting from 20 June 2011. Action Item 5: It was proposed that a Regional meeting should be convened in the 3rd quarter to address component 3 It was clarified that financial years differed. The South Africa and Botswana financial year is from March – March, while the IUCN financial year is from January to December. Year 1 of the project is 2011; Quarter 1 of the project is April – June 2011 and month 1 is April 2011. Action Item 6: IUCN was requested to pick out regional activities and share these with the countries Action Item 7: Each country to provide a write up on institutional arrangements for project implementation to assist in the development of the agreements between IUCN and the three countries Action Item 8: IUCN was requested to develop the Project Website and a project pamphlet
P a g e | 23
Day 2: Wednesday 23 March
9 Recap from Day 1 Jonathan Davies, Drylands Technical Coordinator, IUCN
Jonathan took the participants through the highlights of the previous day’s proceedings. The main areas covered on the first day were the project background and objectives, the inception meeting objectives, project implementation arrangements and deliberations on the project budget and first year workplan.
10 Presentation of Experiences from Regional Projects and Opportunities for Collaboration To ensure that the project collaborates with on-going projects to avoid duplication of efforts, efficient use of resources and complementarity in implementation of project activities, on-going regional projects were presented at the meeting.
10.1 The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project Mohammed Sessay, UNEP and Rudo Makunike, NEPAD
The project aimed at supporting SSA countries in the planning and implementation of programmatic investments to scale up SLM using an ecosystem approach. The development objective of the project was to support SSA countries in improving natural-resource based livelihoods by reducing land-degradations. The global environmental objective was preventing and reducing the impact of land degradation on ecosystem services in SIP investment areas. The specifics objective of the project was to strength the monitoring and evaluation, advocacy and coordination capacities and competencies as part of the NEPAD and RECs responsibilities in supporting and facilitating the scaling up SLM practices in country and regional initiatives.
The Project has 5 components. The following linkages with the Kalahari Namib Project were presented:
Component 1 – development of strategies and mechanisms for effective advocacy and negotiation, awareness & enhancing skills and support for influencing and shaping policy and planning processes using M&E and KM, utilization of knowledge and lessons on SLM to inform and negotiate in policy and planning processes Component 2 - Regional Knowledge Management (focusing on M&E): Component 4 – establishment of country service network
Refer to Annex 3 for the full presentation.
P a g e | 24
10.2 Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE) Klaus Kellner, School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North West University
The project provides an integrated evaluation of practices to combat desertification (biophysical and socio-economic, local and scientific knowledge). The Project was funded by European Commission and involved 16 Partnering institutions in 12 countries in 5 continents. The project has 4 components and the North West University is a major partner working in 2 demonstration sites.
The Practice objectives were to:
Develop an integrated assessment of prevention and restoration practices to combat desertification Identify and document best practices to combat desertification considering traditional and innovative approaches, and multiple purposes at different spatial (local to global) scales, and to establish cost-effective thresholds for the various management alternatives. Facilitate the direct links between stakeholders through their involvement in the evaluation process, bridging the gap between research and practice, science and society Collect and disseminate long‐term experiences and data on prevention and restoration practices to international partners Build social capital by promoting social learning in participatory assessment that will foster knowledge sharing and formation of knowledge network Develop education material and translational science strategies, and implement innovative participatory approaches to link science to society in order to share and transfer evaluation methods and best practices, addressing and involving stakeholders at all levels, from farmers to local organizations, to national and international bodies.
Refer to Annex 4 for the full presentation.
10.3 SCI-SLM Project Overview Dr Maxwell Mudhara, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal
The project hypothesis was that spontaneous community initiatives in sustainable land management (SLM) can be a valuable weapon against the serious and interconnected problems of land degradation and poverty and climate change in dryland areas of Africa.
The project objectives were:
To refine ways of stimulating the further improvement and spread of community-based SLM initiatives that achieve local and global benefits, while simultaneously developing a methodology to upscale and institutionally embed SCI-SLM approaches at local and regional level; and To upscale SLM and reduce impacts of land degradation on ecosystem function and services. P a g e | 25
The project was being implemented in Ghana, Morocco, South Africa and Uganda. The project implementing agency and executing agency were UNEP and University of Kwazulu Natal respectively.
Refer to Annex 5 for the full presentation.
10.4 Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana Ms Constance Masalila-Dodo, Scientific Officer, UNOPS
The Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana was being undertaken under the UNDP-GEF Orange-Senqu River Basin Strategic Action Programme. The overall project was focusing on institutional strengthening of ORASECOM, Strategic Action Programme and National Action Plans, communications and stakeholder participation and demonstration projects in environmental flows; water conservation in the irrigation sector and rangeland management. Project sites identified in Botswana for rangeland management are Khawa: KD/15 - Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust (KKDT) and Zutshwa: KD/2 - Qhaa Qhing Development Trust.
Project activities in the demonstration sites included a baseline using Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA); strengthening of community based institutions; verifying and updating the existing management plans; physical implementation of measures related to environmental conservation, restoration and biodiversity conservation and monitoring, adaptive management and learning.
Refer to Annex 6 for the full presentation.
11 Gaps in the Baseline Studies Jonathan Davies, Drylands Technical Coordinator, IUCN
Jonathan made a presentation on the Kalahari Namib: project inception - knowledge and information gaps (Annex 7).
The aim of the session was to agree on the focus of the regional baseline studies. He highlighted that there was a need to identify data that would inform the regional component and regional data that would inform national activities. There was also need to identify knowledge gaps at regional level and knowledge gaps at national and local levels. Key questions raised by the presentation were what knowledge-development needs a regional approach? And what localised knowledge gaps can be better addressed at a regional scale?
He highlighted gaps in reporting on desertification and made reference to the following monitoring initiatives: LADA, PRAIS, DMP and other projects. Questions raised focused on the frequency of national reporting on desertification, extent of systematic monitoring and whether indicators were standardised in country and between countries?
Global gaps in monitoring desertification were pointed out which include centrality of land rights and governance and their impact on desertification and monitoring indicators. It was noted that UNCCD and PRAIS process were interested in addressing this knowledge gap. P a g e | 26
Other regional knowledge gaps included transboundary ecosystem services; the basis for transboundary ecosystem governance; transboundary biodiversity and transboundary management of resources.
There were also gaps in understanding “best” practices. Questions raised included the meaning of “best” practice? Are socio-political differences across (and within) borders well enough understood to propose “best” practice? Who determines the focus of Good practice? Do we focus on what is possible, rather than what is needed? It was however pointed out that there were numerous good practice initiatives to draw on.
There was thus a need to take stock of good practices by comparing available good practices with locally-identified needs; identify remaining gaps in knowledge; expanding “good practice” to encompass governance – ownership, control, exclusivity, decision making etc.; and define and measure governance.
There was also need for ecosystem-level resource planning through improving understanding of ecosystem relationship between key resources (i.e. water and pasture); exploring links between water abstraction/reticulation and degradation; explore links between exotic plants and water availability; understand the link between water availability and pasture production; apply methodology for analysing the relationship between water-related services, landscape-scale productivity and system integrity and PES and carbon sequestration.
11.1 Group Work
Questions for group discussion
i. Brainstorm knowledge/information gaps ii. Distinguish between knowledge and information gaps iii. Distinguish between regional and national level actions iv. Formulate as questions: look for methodologies later
11.2 Report Back on Group Work
Group 1
Brainstorm knowledge / info gaps: Sharing experiences from the 3 countries
Need to bring in water and other experts (e.g. Engineers) that could enhance our knowledge about the project Transboundary Agreements/Trade Protocols. What are the agreements saying & how they relate to our project - Biodiversity - Water P a g e | 27
- SANPAC/DWNP Landuse type – e.g. Botswana vs RSA – on the Botswana side its communal grazing whilst on RSA it is commercial. What are the implications on vegetation etc. Policy gaps to be identified e.g. at country level how is the project going to be impacted by the policies on the ground Economic incentives - Crafts - Devil’s claw - Bamboro nuts
Distinguish between knowledge and info gaps
Distinguish between global and local biodiversity What are the threats - illegal trade; Illegal bio-prospecting
Distinguish between regional and national level
Fences – need to look into the policies on fences e.g. KTP Policies with regards to Agricultural activities – what are the policies. Contact MEWT/SANPAC and MoA Alien invasive species - look into SADC protocol on alien invasive species Appropriate best practices to be identified + not always apply to all the countries
Group 2
Knowledge/information gaps
Information on groundwater resources (regional transboundary aquifers) but not readily available in a usable format – knowledge gap Information being collected by various institutions e.g. catchment management agencies but not necessarily available for use by other stakeholders – knowledge gap Biodiversity information available but not in a format to be used – institutions that would use info not consulted in terms of what is needed + format – knowledge gap Economic valuation of land productivity and ecosystems and what is lost due to degradation – information gap Challenge to get information so it can be understood and used by planners/politicians/communities – knowledge gap o Gap between research + planning o Need a framework on how to collaborate o Working in closer partnership with government in formulating knowledge Challenge with timing in regards to planning – project can be an add on if outside government planning period Land degradation at wider scale (information gap); there is info on hotspots Indicators + methodology (open space based planning) exist but not being applied P a g e | 28
Community indigenous + local knowledge e.g. Namibia: holistic management – information gap Different grazing management approaches – communally grazed land; individually grazed land; fencing – information and knowledge gap Land tenure – difference between practice and law (whether legislation exists) o Look at national practice and what is happening at project site – information gap.
Regional + national level actions
There is global data that can be used….. but might be extrapolated Groundwater/water resources – need standardized regional approaches to be comparable + consolidated Regional transboundary management body could be forum for technical information sharing Standardize reporting between 3 countries – especially around shared resources
11.3 Plenary Discussion Issues raised during the plenary discussion were as follows:
Action Item 9: Gaps in the Project Baseline studies will be identified during the national inception meetings Action Item 10: Water Management is by a different department and they were not involved in this meeting therefore it is important that they are included in the National Inception meetings UNCCD – indicators looking at 11 impact indicators. 9 other indicators are currently being tested. The project indicators must feed into the UNCCD Indicators. Projects must be aware of the landuse practices between the Molopo and Kuruman river during site selection. Site selection should be informed by the hydrology of the area and landuse Results from the Desert Margins Project can contribute to the project Recommended book: Networking for Development
12 Next Steps
12.1 Dates for National Inception meetings
Proposed dates for National Inception Meetings
Botswana – June (3rd week) Nambia – June 4th week of June South Africa – 4th week of June
There will opportunities for country visits/sharing once activities are clear
P a g e | 29
12.2 Proposed Project Management Structure
PSC
RTB endorsement TAG
Chaired by Quality control & SADC? advice; different fields and countries
PIU
Standards/protocol
NSC NSC NSC Multi-sector Multi-sector Multi-sector
NIU for the 3 countries
12.3 Reporting IUCN will be responsible for overall reporting on the project to UNEP. Reporting requirements will be included in the country agreements with IUCN. Project Coordinating Units need to meet regularly and share workplans so they can implement jointly were possible.
P a g e | 30
13 Closure Lydia Bosoga, Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa
The meeting was closed by Lydia Bosoga on behalf of the Government of South Africa, who thanked participants for their active participation. She emphasised the importance of the project clearly demonstrating action and benefits to the communities.
P a g e | 31
List of Annexes
Annex 1: Meeting Agenda
Annex 2: List of Participants
Annex 3: The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project
Annex 4: Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE)
Annex 5: SCI-SLM Project Overview
Annex 6: Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana
Annex 7: Kalahari Namib Knowledge and Information Gaps
P a g e | 32
Annex 1: Meeting Agenda
Kalahari Namib project: Enhancing Decision-making through Interactive Environmental Learning and Action in Molopo-Nossob River Basin in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa
REGIONAL INCEPTION MEETING
Meeting Agenda
22 – 23 March 2011, Pretoria
IUCN Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa
P a g e | 33
Meeting Objectives
The main objectives of the Kalahari Namib Project Inception Meeting are to:
1. Clarify and agree on Project Management arrangements 1. Clarify the project implementation arrangements/modalities including roles and responsibilities 2. Agree on implementation arrangements at the Regional level 3. Agree on capturing/recording of co-finance 2. Schedule immediate activities 1. Identify gaps in the baseline studies carried out during the project preparation phase 2. Share experiences and lessons from Regional Initiatives in the project area 3. Plan for the National Inception Meetings
Day 1: Tuesday 22 March
0800 – 0900 Registration Ditse Mdluli
0900 – 0910 Welcome Remarks Hastings Chikoko
0910 – 0920 Official Opening Government of South Africa
0920 – 0930 Introductions Hastings Chikoko 0930 – 0940 Background to the KNP Project and GEF Mohamed Sessay, Project Development Process UNEP
0940 – 1000 Kalahari Namib Project Objectives and Key Jonathan Davies Activities
1000 – 1030 Plenary Discussion Hastings Chikoko
1030 – 1045 Tea Break 1045 – 1115 Presentation of the project implementation Cathrine arrangements/modalities including roles and Mutambirwa responsibilities 1115 – 1245 Report Back & Plenary Discussion Hastings Chikoko 1245 – 1345 Lunch 1345 – 1400 Presentation of Proposed Regional Cathrine Implementation Arrangements Mutambirwa 1400 – 1430 Plenary discussion Mohamed Sessay 1430 – 1445 Presentation of the project budget and Cathrine capturing/recording of cofinance Mutambirwa 1445 – 1515 Plenary Discussion Mohamed Sessay 1515 – 1530 Presentation of session on Year 1 work plan Cathrine 1530 – 1600 Group work Mutambirwa 1600 – 1615 Coffee break P a g e | 34
1615 – 1645 Group work 1645 – 1730 Feedback on group work
Day 2: Wednesday 23 March Chair 0900 – 0915 Recap from Day 1 Jonathan Davies Logistics & Administration Ditse Mdluli 0915 – 1015 Report back on Year 1 work plans Leo Niskanen 1015 – 1045 Presentation of Experiences from Regional Leo Niskanen Projects and Opportunities for collaboration 1045 – 1100 Tea Break 1100 – 1130 Presentation of Experiences from Regional Leo Niskanen Projects and Opportunities for collaboration 1130 – 1145 Gaps in the Baseline Studies Jonathan Davies 1145 – 1245 Group work Jonathan Davies 1245 – 1345 Lunch 1345 – 1415 Report back on group work Jonathan Davies 1415 – 1515 Next steps: dates for National Inception Jonathan Davies meetings; composition of PSC; reporting; a.o.b. 1515 – 1530 Closure Mohamed Sessay Lydia Bosoga 1530 – 1700 Refreshments and social interaction
P a g e | 35
Annex 2: List of Participants
KALAHARI NAMIB INCEPTION MEETING 22 - 23 MARCH 2011 LERIBA LODGE, PRETORIA SOUTH AFRICA
Country Name Organisation Position Email Tel.No
Kenya Mr Mohamed Sessay UNEP GEF Senior Project [email protected] +254 20 762 4294 Manager
Botswana Mr Mokganedi Ntana Department of Principal National [email protected] +267 390 2050 Environmental Resources Officer Affairs Botswana Mr Anthony Tema Department of Head of Research [email protected] +267 395 4050 Forestry
Botswana, Ms Mokgadi Monamati District Department of [email protected] + 267 654 0146 Tsabong Environment Environmental Affairs Coordinator
Kenya Dr Jonathan Davies IUCN Drylands Technical [email protected] +254 208 906 06 - Coordinator 13
Kenya Mr Leo Niskanen IUCN Technical Coordinator [email protected] +254 738 420 766 Conservation & Species
Kenya Ms Katharine Cross IUCN Technica Coordinator [email protected] +254 731 257 133 Water & Weltands
Namibia Mr Benedict Libanda Ministry of Programme Manager [email protected] +264 61 284 2808 Environment & & Coordinator Tourism Namibia Mr Paul Nteza Ministry of M & E Specialist-CPP [email protected] +264 61 284 2809
Environment & +264 81 340 3472 Tourism - CPP- ISLM
South Africa Dr Maxwell Mudhara University of Kwa- Director-Farmer [email protected] +27 33 260 5673 Zulu Natal Support Group
South Africa Prof Klaus Kellner North West Researcher & Sub- [email protected] +27 18 299 2510 University, Lecturer, CST UNCCD +27 82 569 6145 Potchefstroom
South Africa Ms Constance Masalila- UNOPS Scientific Officer [email protected] +27 12 663 6826 Dodo +27 83 457 9326
South Africa Ms Lydia Bosoga Department of Deputy Director [email protected] +27 12 310 3390 Environmental Affairs
South Africa Ms Machuene Ramonyai Department of Environmental Officer [email protected] 27 12 310 3453 Environmental Affairs South Africa Ms Martha Khwene Department of National Resource [email protected] +27 12 319 7618 Forestry & Specialist +27 83 523 2128 Fisheries
South Africa Ms Khumo Badisa Department of Intern [email protected] +27 12 319 7618 Forestry & +27 83 523 2128 Fisheries P a g e | 36
South Africa Mr Ramakgwale Department of Deputy Director [email protected] +27 82 745 0713 Mampholo Forestry & Fisheries
South Africa Ms Rudo Makunike NEPAD Agency Senior SLM Officer [email protected] +27 11 256 3600
South Africa Ms Cecilia Kinuthia- UNEP Regional Programme [email protected] +27 12 354 8092
Njenga Coordinator +27 715281840
South Africa Mr Hastings Chikoko IUCN Head of Office/Head [email protected] +27 12 342 8304 of Constituency
South Africa Ms Cathrine Mutambirwa IUCN Senior Programme [email protected] +27 12 342 8304 Officer
South Africa Ms Ditse Mdluli IUCN Project Administrator [email protected] +27 12 342 8304
South Ms Roberta Burgess Department of Manager - [email protected]; +27 83 449 7561
Africa, Agriculture, Land Technology [email protected] +27 53 838 9102 Northern Reform & Rural Development Cape Development South Mr Greame Sahling Department of Manager - SRM [email protected]; +27 71 860 7557
Africa, Agriculture, Land [email protected] Northern Reform & Rural Cape Development
P a g e | 37
Annex 3: The Institutional Support to NEPAD and RECs for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) scale up in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Project
P a g e | 38
P a g e | 39
Annex 4: Prevention and Restoration Actions to Combat Desertification. An Integrated Assessment (PRACTICE)
P a g e | 40
P a g e | 41
P a g e | 42
P a g e | 43
Annex 5: SCI-SLM Project Overview
P a g e | 44
P a g e | 45
Annex 6: Demonstration Project on Community Based Rangeland Management in Botswana
P a g e | 46
P a g e | 47
Annex 7: Kalahari Namib Knowledge and Information Gaps
P a g e | 48