Success message
error message
warn message
Mid Term Review of the Kgalagadi and Ghanzi Drylands Ecosystem Project
Commissioning Unit: Botswana
Evaluation Plan: 2017-2021
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 08/2021
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Botswana
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1: The KGDEP is put under NIM within the MENT and coordinated from DEA in line with the arrangements outlined in the Project Document to be compliant with the Grant Agreement and UNDP’s on policies for NIM projects. This will ensure national ownership and ensure that the UNDP CO can better perform its oversight and quality assurance functions as the GEF Agency and thereby reduce potential conflicts of interest and confused lines of responsibility and accountability. By returning to an oversight role, the UNDP will be able to more effectively ensure that the project is implemented in full compliance with the terms of the UNDP SES Policy

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Accepted:

Senior management in the MENT, the Department of Environment Affairs (DEA) and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) - as representatives of the MENT - have expressed willingness to take over the lead in executing the project and managing the PMU, though there are some concerns about existing levels of capacity to do this effectively. The UNDP CO is ready to transition full accountability for project execution to the IP in a phased process, releasing UNDP CO to play a strong oversight and capacity development role as is consistent with the functions that can be charged to the GEF Agency Fee. This process has already begun: (i) the DWNP has taken a lead role for execution under Component 1 (wildlife crime law enforcement); (ii) the TORs and contract of the new Project Manager (PM), appointed by UNDP CO with effect from 16 June 2021, states the following dual reporting line: “The PM will report to the Director of the DEA at the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism (MENT) in close collaboration with DWNP (Dept. of Wildlife and National Parks) and UNDP RR (or duly designated UNDP officer) for all of the project’s substantive and administrative issues. From the strategic point of view of the project, the PM will report on a periodic basis to the Project Steering Committee (PSC).”

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. UNDP CO to discuss the implementation arrangements for the project bilaterally with MENT and agree on a well-managed, documented process, with clear timeframes, for phased transitioning to full NIM. This will include: 1.1.1 As a priority, UNDP CO (with guidance from the BPPS-NCE Directorate where required) and MENT will clarify the dual reporting line of the PM and PMU to UNDP (which has issued the service contract), the IP (which will be responsible for day-to-day execution of the project) and the PSC (which is responsible for overall guidance, direction and decision-making relating to the project) - See also response to Recommendation 3 1.1.2 UNDP CO to capture these joint accountability arrangements in a letter of agreement to be signed jointly by the RR and a designated official in the MENT (tbd)
[Added: 2021/12/01]
UNDP CO and MENT 2021/11 Completed A meeting was held between UNDP CO and MENT on the project implementation modality. This was formalised through a correspondence between UNDP and MENT
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 2: The MENT/DEA established a forum for state and non-state actors involved in land use in the KGDE. The purpose of the forum is to openly discuss land use issues – land use planning, CBNRM, regulatory enforcement, resource-based enterprises, hunting, private sector involvement and JVPs. It should cut across all 4 components and inform the ILMP process. It should be separate from the TAC and TRG. NGOs and academics involved in wildlife, livelihoods and land use planning should be included in the “membership”. The purpose of the forum is to provide a platform for land users to discuss land use and land use planning in the broadest sense. A selection of experts from academic institutions with strong applied social studies departments should be invited to attend the meetings. Meetings should be held quarterly and in the project domain. A highly qualified facilitator should be engaged on a Contractual basis to i) develop the participatory methodology, ii) facilitate the meetings, and iii) provide workshop reports/proceedings and communications for distribution to project stakeholders and high-level advocacy and general publication. The facilitator should be tasked with deciding on the appropriate methodology, participatory tools and approaches. 

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

The recommendation is rejected  

Noting that this forum could potentially be established within government as a long-term entity to ensure the sustainability of the project, therefore it is potentially a major part of the project’s legacy/sustainability Plan.  There is currently an ongoing process of the development of the Kgalagadi and Ghanzi District Integrated Land Use Management Plan (ILUMP), which involves the stakeholders outlined in the recommendation. This is a long-term multi-stakeholder development plan that requires a similar forum in its development and implementation. The development of the ILUMP should include a legacy/sustainability plan which should address institutional arrangement for continued dialog and adaptive management. The ILUMP should therefore recommend establishment of the recommended forum with clear advice on:

The composition and level of participation.

Roles and responsibilities.

Resource requirement for the operationalization.

Rules of procedure.

etc

The rules and procedures, institutional arrangements; and roles and responsibilities should be outlined in the Terms of Reference of the Forum as would be recommended by the ILUMP. These would provide direction on discussions by the forum thus ensuring that discussions are well-aligned with the project or the ILUMP objectives, and not derailed into themes that are not particularly relevant to the project and the ILUMP.  The establishment of the Forum is therefore proposed to be deferred until the completion of the ILUMP.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3: Engage through a competitive process, a substantive Project Manager to the PMU. The PM has to have a considerable and high-level advocacy and technical role. The position should be a managerial role, and not be an administrative one. A senior person with experience in planning and CBNRM is required to fill this position. They should report through the Project Director (MENT/DEA) to the PSC/PB. They should be engaged as soon as possible in order to drive through the restructuring of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

This recommendation is partially accepted

With the departure of the former Project Manager 6 June 2021, the UNDP CO, in consultation with the IP, advertised the position of substantive Project Manager, the TORs for which include technical, managerial and advocacy roles. After an open, competitive process, Mr Mbiganyi Frederick Dipotso, was appointed to the position with effect from 16 June 2021. The Project Manager has been appointed on a UNDP NPSA, but with contractual provision for a dual reporting line into both UNDP CO and the DEA, the mechanics for which have yet to be worked out, through actions described below.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1. Reporting lines of Project Manager to be clarified and captured in relevant TORs and performance agreements:
[Added: 2021/12/01]
UNDP CO and MENT 2021/11 Completed Following the CO office audit recommendations on the NIM approach, a letter from the UNDP CO to MENT has been submitted to clarify a new modality through which MENT will take a greater responsibility to supervise the PMU
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4: Review the project SRF/LF indicators and targets. Consider:
Component 2 – transfer indicator 8116 to Component 1 and rephrase according to ESIA. Use historical and disaggregated data collected from DWNP to retrofit baseline.
Component 2 - Indicator 6: Number of value chains and ecotourism ventures operationalized. Consider maintaining the indicator and use against the remaining livelihood projects to be supported by the project and add an additional indicator to measure the capacity building with the Trusts to be defined through the ESIA - see below Recommendation 6 & 7.
Component 2 - Indicator 7: Percentage increase in incomes derived from ecotourism and value chains. Remove this indicator and replace with an indicator that reflects the project’s impact on increased social capital and empowerment of Trusts which can be derived from the ESIA and ESRM. Retrofit the baseline.
Component 4 – include an additional indicator(s) to reflect the findings and recommendations of the ESIA, in particular the effectiveness of the GRM (separate indicator)

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

This recommendation is partially accepted. 

The need to revise project indicators and targets is acknowledged. However, the adjustment of the indicators and the targets requires a whole-of-project reset/redesign, seeking the necessary approvals where applicable.  It is currently unclear how the indicators and targets will be adjusted until the project reset/redesign has taken place.  The project reset/redesign will provide an opportunity to review the KPIs at both the outcome and output level and take into consideration the change in the country context since the time of project design.  Considering the project lifetime and the level of implementation at MTR, this review will contribute towards the conceptualization of the project re-set process which will additionally be guided by what is actually allowable by the GEF, the timeframes involved to secure approvals (if any), what happens while we wait, and the consequences thereof. The recommendation is therefore partially accepted but the details of which indicators will be adjusted and how will be fleshed out during the project reset, and informed by the ESIA, and ESP, which will be finalized as part of the re-set process. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1. Draft TOR for scope of work to be carried out to achieve the project reset, including technical, financial and institutional aspects and completion of safeguards due diligence.
[Added: 2021/12/01]
UNDP CO 2021/11 Completed The TORs have been drafted and approved. The procurement of a suitable contractor is on-going
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5: Review all the Component 2 proposed projects and reject those that do not contribute to the KGDEP objective (see Annex 20) and are spatially aligned with the ILMP. Urgently communicate the decisions to the local communities and explain why. Select those projects that still fit the criteria of the project or engage the community members again on the project rural appraisal exercise and be guided by the project objectives, to build project ownership; and move quickly to implement them (see recommendation 6).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Recommendation is partially accepted.

UNDP and the Implementing Partner MENT recognized challenges in the viability of some of the proposed projects under Component 2. There are currently on-going discussions with between the UNDP and the MENT Executive on four proposed community livelihood activities which are “low risk and high impact” projects. These four (4) initiatives that present an opportunity for KGDEP include the following:

  1. Establishing veld product/crafts centre south of the village of Kacgae;
  2. Conducting camel-back patrols of WMAs to collect data on wildlife populations, poaching activities, rangeland management and problem animals.
  3. Implementing performance-based payments for adhering to agreed local land use plans; and
  4. Developing self-drive wilderness ecotourism trails.

Component 2 remains relevant and contributes to the objective of KGDEP, however the re-assessment of Component 2 activities, including how the project engages with Community Trusts, will take place during the project reset/redesign process. The specific project activities will be identified during the project reset/redesign process and the ongoing SES and development of the ESIA and ESMP. After securing FPIC from relevant communities the projects will be further developed, depending on the investment requirements, project viability, and the capacity of the communities to manage such projects or business ventures.

Following project redesign, the PMU will undertake community consultations to provide feedback of the projects that have been endorsed and will be supported by the KGDEP. This will be followed by support towards the business development aspects of the respective activities and support capacity development of the community Trusts.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.3. Engage community members on business plan design and development (infrastructure development), and training (capacity building)
[Added: 2021/12/01] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
PMU 2023/02 Initiated Although project activities have been approved, This engagement has been postponed. ESIA, ESIA, ESMF, and ESMP are yet to be completed. The project and its IP’s are organizing a training for community members at the beginning of Jan – Feb 2023. History
5.1. Ensure that re-assessment of initiatives are is included in the scope of work for the reset process
[Added: 2021/12/01] [Last Updated: 2022/04/11]
PMU 2022/04 Completed The reset consultancy has been completed by the end of MARCH 2022. The scope of work/TORs included re-assessment of the initially proposed initiatives in the project document. The recommendations are contained in the reset findings report. History
5.2. On completion of safeguards due diligence, including securing FPIC where required, provide feedback to the communities on the final decision
[Added: 2021/12/01] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
PMU 2022/10 Completed FPIC has been completed. Also, the request for proposals was issued in early September 2022 in order to solicit interested NGO/CSO’s in the landscape, capable of carrying out the work packages with desired experience and capacities. The findings of the procurement evaluation will determine engagement. History
6. Recommendation:

6: Component 2 should be reviewed against the ESIA findings and an Output added to reflect support to capacity building with Trust. There is a reputational risk associated with this and related to the trophy hunting. The project should prepare a brief outlining the risks and explaining that the principal involvement of the KGDEP with the Trusts is to build their internal capacities and social capital. There are considerable weaknesses in the hunting sector in Botswana, many of them are associated with the poor capacities of the Trusts to negotiate with external interests and markets and to capture the economic benefits. This output, in part, will address these weaknesses although not necessarily with the view to the Trust obtaining its Head Lease. That is an internal and independent decision for the Trust. Lifting the hunting ban represents a fundamental change in the regulatory context for the project and the Project Document would need to be reformulated through this output if it were to specifically link capacity building with the Head Lease/hunting. Neither is it ethically right for the project to ignore support to the Trusts to build their internal capacities and build social capital, especially as it relates to negotiating with external interests such as the private sector as well as government agencies. The output should clearly demonstrate how it addresses the existing weaknesses and strengthens the Trusts capacities, especially in relation to illegal hunting and their relationship with the DWNP by linking this to the GRM. On the surface, the changes in legislation creates a conundrum for the KGDEP. Support to the communities is absolutely in line with the Project Document and with the recommendations of the ESIA, arguably it is in line with the national policy framework and is, inevitably, just the right thing to do. However, that support, if successful, will enable the Trusts to access certain rights over resources on their land and they are then legally, and morally entitled to use those resources within the Law. However, there are considerable and justified concerns relating to the trophy hunting sector per se. However, it helps if the argument is not framed in a binary manner - between “consumptive” and “non-consumptive” uses. The argument should be framed in terms of:
Protection: Given that the particular circumstances of a resource – such as scarcity, level of threat, historic events etc. – result in a precarious situation where utilisation of the resource is considered too risky, protection – through legislation, protected area, etc. – is a valuable tool to ensure sustainability of the resource. However, this is a costly option and these costs – prohibition, enforcement, management, opportunity costs etc. – are both definable and measurable and, therefore, sustainability can be measured against the ability of society/national governments to meet these costs. This already takes place in the KTP and CKGR
Utilisation: Given that a resource can withstand a level of utilisation that is biologically sustainable it is possible to establish a management regime, which maintains the resource at an acceptable level providing that those who incur the management or opportunity costs are able to benefit from its utilisation.
Abandonment: Given that a resource cannot be utilised sustainably and society is either unable or unwilling to incur the costs of protecting the resource, then the resource must be “abandoned”. That is; there is a high risk of extirpation or biological or economic extinction. While it is unlikely that any society would knowingly advocate abandoning a resource – species, population or ecosystem – when protective measures are applied without the material resources or capacity to effectively carry this out, there is a high risk of abandonment by default.
If wildlife passing through the WMAs is not given a focused value to those communities who share the land then it is likely that they will abandon the resource in favour of other legitimate land uses. Neither will they collaborate with the state, on whom the responsibility for protecting wildlife will fall in its entirety. Accepting the concerns about the hunting sector in Botswana, regardless of whether use is “consumptive” or “non-consumptive”; community utilisation by an empowered community with strong internal governance and cohesion and a willingness to collaborate to safeguard their resources carries less risk to the wildlife resources.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

The recommendation is partially accepted.

The Partners recognize that before the hunting ban, hunting in the KGDEP landscape was a key component contributing to local livelihoods, and that since the ban has been lifted, hunting will continue to be a key component of the Trusts’ activities in terms of quick revenue streams, and possible immediate benefits to the communities. However, the sustainability of consumptive utilization (hunting) of wildlife resources, amid other pressures on wildlife resources such as: climate change; loss of ecosystem functions and connectivity; IWT; HWC; and habitat degradation and fragmentation, is a well-known global concern in sustainable management and conservation of wildlife resources.  Hunting cannot and should not be the only revenue stream for Trusts. Since Government initiatives are in place to support consumptive utilization, this gives an opportunity for other players to explore and build capacity for non-consumptive ventures as a means of income stream diversification.  

As outlined in recommendation 5 above, the re-assessment of Component 2 activities, including capacity development of the respective Trusts, will take place during the project reset/redesign process. The specific livelihood diversification activities to be supported by the project will be identified during the project reset/redesign process and will take into account compliance with UNDP’s Social and Environmental Standards Policy and project-specific safeguards risks, and the stipulation in the Global Wildlife Programme (GWP) Project Framework Document (PFD) that projects should explore non-consumptive use options (which is the basis on which the KGDEP was designed).  

The PMU and MENT, potentially with support from other responsible parties, following the project reset, and completion of the ESIA and the respective ESMPs, will engage communities to develop viable (low-investment, low-risk and high-return) value chains and/or ecotourism ventures, to promote wildlife value through non-consumptive utilization. There are already NGOs in the landscape that are assisting communities with integrated sustainable land use practices and piloting of performance-based conservation payments and so the opportunity exists to engage such partners to build on or scale up the already-existing initiatives using project resources.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1. Review Component 2 against the project’s indicators and targets, and the ESIA findings, and support capacity development of the Trusts aligned to identified project activities
[Added: 2021/12/01] [Last Updated: 2022/04/11]
PMU 2022/04 Completed Review of component 2 of the project document is part of the reset process has been done. Recommendation on how implementation of the component are contained in the re-set report which has been sent to GEF for approval. History
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 7: Under Component 2 identify and engage NGO partners to implement Component 2 activities (Recommendations 6 & 7). Some of these NGOs have been working in the two districts and their knowledge and experience will be vital. This move will necessitate the UNDP CO carrying out a HACT on each NGO117 and the PMU negotiating Contracts. The PSC/PB to set a milestone date for completion of administrative procedures and include in Recommendation 9).

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Recommendation is accepted. 

The project Partners recognize the experience, capacity and established track record of several NGOs/CSOs which are active in the project landscape and which have been identified as potential partners to be engaged in project execution, mainly under Component 2 but also under Component 3 (SLM and management planning). It is further recognized that engaging these NGOs would enable effective and efficient delivery of project results, which will contribute significantly to accelerated performance.

The project implementation arrangements in the PRODOC make provision for engaging NGOs/CSOs to deliver specific outputs, or to serve as Component Managers or Technical Advisors under Component 2 (and 3 & 4), but these arrangements have not yet been implemented, partly due to ambiguity in the project management arrangements in the narrative of the PRODOC, and the associated budget and budget notes Clarity is required to identify available budget lines for the engagement of NGOs/CSOs under each component. Therefore, to facilitate faster project implementation, UNDP CO, and MENT will explore the modalities for engaging NGOs/CSOs active in the land scape, as Responsible Parties for project activities under component 2.  As per UNDP policy, before an entity can be engaged as a Responsible Party a capacity assessment of that entity should be undertaken to determine:

Technical capacity;

Managerial capacity;

Administrative capacity; and

Financial capacity.

UNDP CO and PMU will undertake the capacity assessment of the prospective NGOs/CSOs through the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT) process. Compliant CSOs will then be contracted either through a competitive bid process or through setting up relevant contractual arrangements for Responsible Parties (see below).  

It should be noted that there are two (2) options for engagement of NGOs/CSOs, and these are through either the Responsible Party (RP) or contractual service modality.

Where the RP modality is selected, the project must ensure that due diligence for appointment of RPs is followed (see Guidance in POPP) and that HACT Assessments are carried out where annual budget to be managed by the RP exceeds $150 000. Only Low or Moderate Risk RPs to be appointed. Where Contractual Services modalities are indicated, the project must develop TORs, conduct open procurement process and invite technical and financial proposals, to be evaluated following relevant procedures.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 Conduct a rapid assessment of available NGO/CSO capacity, to determine best fit with project requirements, based on: technical, managerial, administrative and financial capacity and experience and availability to take on project activities within the required timeframes
[Added: 2021/11/30] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
PMU and MENT 2023/02 Initiated It was agreed that the rapid assessment for the NGO/CSO will be done after the engagement of the NGO as responsible party. The request for proposals was issued in early September 2022 to solicit interested NGO/CSO’s in the landscape. Call for proposals has been received for two livelihoods projects and one Human wildlife conflict interventions. The HWC call proposal has been evaluated and it is at final stage of award. The two livelihoods’ projects proposals will be evaluated in November 2022. The successful NGO/CSO will then be assessed for capacity to implement the selected projects. Assessment is expected to be completed by Feb 2023. History
7.2. Determine optimal modalities for engagement of NGOs/CSOs, including as: Responsible Parties; Contractual Service Providers (Companies) and implement appropriate processes to secure the services of the selected NGOs.
[Added: 2021/11/30] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
PMU and MENT 2022/12 Initiated NGO’s will be engaged as responsible parties by Dec 2022. History
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 8: Develop time-bound Output Indicators (linked to the outcome-level indicators) with a “traffic lights” colour coding system for the remaining part of the project implementation. Output indicators to be reviewed bi-monthly by UNDP CO and reported by the PMU to the PSC/PB quarterly or on an ad hoc basis as needed in order to ensure that things get done.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Recommendation accepted.  

The project Partners recognize that most of the project activities are behind schedule and the fact that the indicators were not time bound may have contributed to delays in the commencement of the implementation of project activities. Considering the remaining project lifespan, all indicators will be time bound, taking into consideration implementation process such as procurement, development, operationalization and time for yielding results.

As part of the project reset process, the PMU and UNDP CO in consultation with the project partners and under guidance of the project design expert, will review the indicators to ensure they are SMART to attach binding accountability and uptake by all implementing partners.  These will be monitored for compliance with the ESIA and ESMP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
review progress against the indicators bi-monthly and report any challenges
[Added: 2021/11/30]
PMU and MENT 2024/12 Initiated The tracking of progress will continue until the end of the project
PMU to report progress to PSC quarterly
[Added: 2021/11/30]
PMU 2024/12 Initiated This is a continuous process until end of project
9. Recommendation:

Recommendation 9:

Implement the findings of the ESIA and the ESMP including operationalising the GRM for the project. All Component activities to demonstrate Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) under the ESMP. ESIA and ESMP to be posted on the UNDP CO website once internally reviewed by UNDP safeguards focal point.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

The recommendation is accepted. 

Following the completion of the ESIA, securing of FPIC, and development of the ESMP including the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM), all documents will all be approved and made public as per requirements of UNDP policy. Completion of the safeguards work will take place during the project reset process, once the project activities – especially under Components 2 and 3 (SLM) – have been clarified. FPIC can only be secured once it is clear which activities trigger the need for FPIC and this will be determined during the reset.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implement the findings of the ESIA and the ESMP
[Added: 2021/11/30] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
PMU and Ministry of Environment (MENT) 2022/10 Completed Findings from ESIA and ESMP reports have been incorporated into the 2023 project AWP. History
Post ESIA and ESMP on UNDP CO website once finalized and monitor implementation on an ongoing basis
[Added: 2021/11/30] [Last Updated: 2022/11/23]
UNDP Communications Office 2023/02 Not Initiated The final ESIA and ESMP have been submitted to the SES regional technical advisor before they are reviewed by the TRG and PSC. These will then be posted on the UNDP CO website for 60 days for public review. History
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 10:

The PMU should, following the management response to the MTR begin to develop a legacy plan with the project’s partners and in line with the upcoming Green Climate Fund project on rangeland management (developed by Conservation International). There is very little time left and many of the outputs will likely need longer term support beyond the end of the KGDEP. Starting a legacy plan will ensure that there is a smooth transition.

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Recommendation accepted.  

The Kgalagadi and Ghanzi ILUMP will form part of the long-term management or legacy plan of the project area, therefore the legacy plan will be largely based on the ILUMP, which will serve as the foundation for sustainability of most project activities. To avoid duplication of effort to produce a separate legacy plan, the ILUMP will include a legacy or sustainability plan that incorporates all project activities.

During the development process of the ILUMP, particularly where there is need to discuss tradeoffs between land use options, high-level decision-makers, not only technical officers (which is currently the case), will be brought into the process, and they will also contribute to development of the legacy plan. Currently the ILUMP process involves technical staff. Without the active involvement of high-level decision-makers, the outputs of the ILUMP, including the legacy plan, are unlikely to gain traction and ownership.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Develop project legacy plan
[Added: 2021/11/30] [Last Updated: 2022/07/12]
PMU and Ministry of Environment, Natural Resource Management and Tourism 2024/05 Not Initiated This action will be completed towards closure of the project. However, measures of ensuring that the project leaves a long lasting legacy are continuously being put in place History
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 11:

The PSC/PB should be reduced to a small executive group according to the Project Document - The Project Board is comprised of representatives from the following institutions: Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism (MENT), Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Department of Forestry and Range Resources (DFRR), Ministry of Agriculture, Land Boards from Ghanzi and Kgalagadi, Botswana Tourism Organization, University of Botswana Livestock/Game Ranchers, Community Groups, NGOs. In addition to this the PSC/PB should include representation from the Trusts

Management Response: [Added: 2021/08/06] [Last Updated: 2021/11/30]

Recommendation accepted:

Management accepted the recommendation but advised that more emphasise be put on level of participation and not numbers as the committee is for strategic decision making. The management noted that the membership structure proposed by DTCP, should not be the PSC this could be applied at the TRG level or at a special purpose structure. The recommendation was accepted, and IPs were advised to limit their representation at PSC to Director or Deputy Director level as it is a strategic decision body and not a technical discussion committee.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Reduce membership of the PSC as per the PRODOC and ensure representation of CBOs
[Added: 2021/11/30]
PMU 2021/10 Completed This activity has been completed. The reduction of the PSC membership will be reflected during the December PSC meeting

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org