LCBCCAP Final Review Report 06 05 2014docx aart 07052014

April May 2014

Draft Final Report: Mid Term Review for

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation ProjectPro-gramme

NORWEGIAN SUPPORT CODE: MWI-2611-08/024

PROJECTMid Term Review for

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation gramme

NIRAS A/S

Aaboulevarden 80

8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

Reg. No. 37295728 Denmark

FRI, FIDIC

www.niras.com

P: +45 8732 3232

F: +45 8732 3200

E: [email protected]

D: 87323281

M: 41594719

E: [email protected]

1 Introduction...............................................................................................7

1.1 Review Purpose.........................................................................................7

1.2 The Review Team......................................................................................7

1.3 Review Methodology..................................................................................7

1.4 Constraints and Limitations........................................................................8

1.5 Acknowledgement......................................................................................9

2 The Programme.........................................................................................9

2.1 History of the Programme...........................................................................9

2.2 Lake Chilwa Basin......................................................................................9

2.3 Beneficiaries.............................................................................................10

2.4 Programme Goal and Objectives..............................................................11

2.5 Programme Approach..............................................................................12

2.6 Programme Management.........................................................................13

2.7 Programme Expenditures.........................................................................13

2.8 Previous Reviews.....................................................................................14

3 Findings...................................................................................................14

3.1 Institutional Assessment of LEAD.............................................................14

3.1.1 Financial system.......................................................................14

3.1.2 Financial capability and viability................................................15

3.1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation / QA procedures.............................16

3.1.4 HR management.......................................................................16

3.1.5 Strategic plans and policies......................................................16

3.1.6 Office facilities...........................................................................16

3.1.7 LEAD Website..........................................................................17

3.1.8 Operational Capacity................................................................17

3.2 Coordination Among Implementing Partners............................................17

3.3 Studies and Research..............................................................................19

3.4 Baseline Studies.......................................................................................20

3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................21

3.6 Gender.....................................................................................................21

3.7 Selected Achievements in Relation to Outputs.........................................22

3.7.1 Output 1: Increased local capacity............................................22

3.7.2 Output 2: Integrated management plan for LCB developed and

implemented.............................................................................22

3.7.3 Output 3: Improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity

and resilience............................................................................24

3.7.4 Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased

..................................................................................................28

4 Review criteria.........................................................................................29

4.1 Relevance................................................................................................29

CONTENTS

www.niras.com

4.2 Effectiveness............................................................................................30

4.3 Efficiency..................................................................................................30

4.4 Impact.......................................................................................................31

4.5 Sustainability............................................................................................31

4.6 Risk Management.....................................................................................32

5 Lesson learned........................................................................................35

6 Conclusions.............................................................................................36

7 Recommendations..................................................................................37

7.1 Recommendation to the Programme........................................................37

7.2 Recommendations to LEAD.....................................................................39

7.3 Recommendations to the RNE.................................................................40

8 Annexes...................................................................................................41

8.1 Annex 1. Terms of Reference...................................................................42

8.2 Annex 2. Mission Programme..................................................................48

8.3 Annex 3. Persons met..............................................................................52

8.4 Annex 4. Institutional Assessment - LEAD...............................................55

8.5 Annex 5. Programme Management.........................................................61

8.6 Annex 6. Staff Overview...........................................................................64

8.7 Annex 7. Documents consulted................................................................66

8.8 Annex 8. M&E Framework........................................................................68

CONTENTS

www.niras.com

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BVC Beach Village Committee CA Conservation Agriculture CC Climate ChangeDADO District Agricultural Development Office/Officer DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DEC District Executive Committee DESC District Executive Environmental Sub-committee on the Environment DF The Development Fund (of Norway) EPA Extension Planning Area FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malawi GPS Geographical Positioning SystemHEAL Harmonisation for Enhanced LivelihoodsHH HouseholdsHIV/AIDS Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immuno-defiency Syndrome LCBCCAP Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme LEAD Leadership for Environment and Development LFA Logical Framework Approach/Analysis MBC Malawi Broadcasting CooperationM&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFA Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy MK Malawi Kwacha MoU Memorandum of UnderstandingNAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action NEAL Network for Enhanced LivelihoodsNGO Non-governmental Organisation NOK Norwegian Kroner Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NRM Natural Resources ManagementPMC Project Management CommitteePS Permanent Principal SecretaryPSC Project Steering CommitteeQA Quality AssuranceREDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RNE Royal Norwegian Embassy TA Traditional Authority TLC Technologies Learning CentreToR Terms of Reference TOT Training of TrainersUSD United States DollarsWALA Wellness and Agriculture for Life AdvancementWATSAN Water and SanitationVNRMC Village Natural Resource Management CommitteeWFC World Fish

Mid-term review Lake Chilwa Climate Change Adaptation Programme 1www.niras.com

aart van der heide, 06/05/14,

World Fish Centre

Executive Summary

The Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Malawi is a five year, 35 million NOK funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented by programme supported by tthe Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE) in Lilongwe, Malawi. The programme started in 2010 and will end 31 December 2014.

The Goal of the programme is to improve and sustain livelihoods of the 1.4 mil-lion people in the Lake Chilwa basin; and the purpose is to develop and imple-ment a basin-wide climate change adaptation strategy that builds resilience of people, institutions and natural resources.

The Programme is implemented by a consortium consisting of three partners: Leadership for Development and Environment and Ddevelopment in Southern and Eastern Africa (now “The Registered Trustees of Leadership for Environ-ment and Development”, or in short LEAD), the Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) and the WorldFish Centre (WFC). LEAD is the lead partner of the Consortium.

This report presents the findings from a Mid-Term Review of the programme, conducted in March-April 2014.

FindingsThe consortium partners have, after some years of practicing, a generally well-functioning coordination and planning process. The Programme do, however, still lack a Programme Operational Manual, which clearly spells out the roles and responsibilities and the coordination and cooperation procedures among part-ners and guide programme implementation.

Programme partners consider that the recent independence of LEAD from the University of Malawi may smoothen coordination further and speed up certain processes, including procurement.

Monitoring of the Programme progress is done through the use of the Log Frame and the corresponding M&E matrix, developed in the beginning of the Pro-gramme. The monitoring system is elaborate and quite ambitious and include indicators for both results and impacts, However, proper baseline studies have not been made and only result indicators have been measured. The system does, however, provide more information on progress than most projects do.

The Consortium composition, as well as the close linkage to the University provides an excellent platform for research, studies and involvement of students. A number of relevant studies have been produced, and the Programme supports three thesis students and has a number of interns. However, the opportunities are not yet fully exploited, and many interesting research questions related to the Programme remain to be addressed.

The interventions in the field are done in close cooperation with the three District Councils as well as various levels of community-based groups and committees,


all anchored in the national decentralization policy and all important for the cross-sectoral, cross-institutional basin wide approach applied in a relative suc-cessful way by the Programme.

The interventions involve the main economic sectors in the Basin; agriculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock and focus on diversification and / or improvement of production and income generating activities through Conservation Agriculture; Poultry and Pig rearing; Value addition; Improved fish processing and marketing. Sustainable NRM, including tree-planting is also supported through the Village Natural Resource Management Committees. Most activities are implemented through the District Extension workers, with support from the Programme. The activities are generally very appreciated by the beneficiaries, and in general found to be well implemented by the Review Team. However the overall scale is still limited.

The Programme has also supported the establishment of a community radio, Ra-dio ChancoChanco Community Radio. It is a remarkable success, and strongly enhance the cross-basin dialogue, sharing of information and learning in relation to Programme relevant issues. Ten community based radio Listeners Clubs has been established throughout the Basin and they produce local, very context rel-evant programmes that are aired by the Radio.

LEAD operated until recently as a Centre within the University of Malawi, but in February 2014 it registered as an independent Trust in Malawi. The organisation has physically moved out of the University premises. This is partly a response to an earlier review, recommending more clear distinction between roles of the University and LEAD. LEAD operates in a network with LEAD International and other LEAD Member Programmes, but are financially and legally independent from those. LEAD has established a Board with 6 members, all Malawians, and has a constitution approved by the Board. An assessment of LEAD suggest that the organisation is well functioning, and able to managed a Programme like LCBCCAP, but that as part of the transition process an institutional strengthening process should take place.

ConclusionsThe Programme is well aligned to national policies and work through permanent, local/district institutions, favouring long term sustainability. It provides relevant responses to the situation in the Basin.

The ecosystem-based, basin-wide, cross-sectoral and cross-institutional ap-proach is complementary to the more narrowly focussed interventions of many other projects and programmes, and helps to build local capacity as well as the overall planning and implementation framework for such interventions. This may become the platform for a future Lake Chilwa trust, authority or similar.

It is a complex programme with many stakeholders and many levels of interven-tion in a large area. Considering the complexity, the progress of the Programme is good, but this kind of interventions should be long term, - at least 10, prefer-ably 15 years.



I think must be interventions

In general terms, the Programme, with some delays and some limitations, is achieving the results specified in the Logical Framework and the Monitoring and Evaluation (O&MM&E) Framework. However, the impact of the Programme is not monitored as foreseen in the O&MM&E framework.

The Programme coverage in terms of number of direct beneficiaries is low, and has so far mainly the character of providing demonstration of technologies and approaches, but the Programme has created a solid foundation and may be scaled up in a second phase. Up-scaling in relation to specific field-based activit-ies (e.g. CA) may however, also be done through support to other organisations.

A number of external and internal challenges has reduced efficiency in Pro-gramme management and implementation during the first 3-4 years of the pro-gramme. However, most of those have been appropriately addressed, providing a better platform for a more efficient programme management system.

The set-up of the Programme, including links to the Policy level through the Pro-gramme Steering Committee has enabled the Programme to contribute to the policy debate.

LEAD is a small organisation and is financially very dependent on LCBCCAP. However, over the years it has shown that it is able to maintain itself and to work with funding from varying sources. The small organisation is able to act in a flexible manner and rapidly adjust if conditions are changing. LEAD has generally been able to produce the outputs expected from the organisation and to report on those in a timely manner. LEAD will be able to head the implementation of a second phase of the LCBCCAP, but an institutional strengthening process should be undertaken during the remainder of 2014.

Main Recommendations

Programme Management: The partners should develop a programme operational manual describ-

ing the Programme Management (PM) and coordination structure, the obligations of each of the partners, conditions for transfer of funds and other aspects of relevance for a well-functioning cooperation.

The Risk Management Matrix should be updated and continuously mon-itored at PMC and PSC level.

Research, monitoring and evaluation should be coordinated by one strong unit and have qualified and experienced staff.

Research, Studies and M&E The Programme should develop a structured research agenda, outlining

important research questions defined by the partners and with direct relevance to the situation in the Basin and the programme Activities.

The Programme website should be updated, and the planned linkage to the M&E system, proving transparency in Programme activities and achievements, should be established.

The programme needs a review system to quality check studies before they are published (both technical and editorial checks).


Impact indicators in the M&E system should be monitored. The pro-cesses should start with design of an robust methodology resulting in a data collection system that is representative. Good, technically feasible, and objectively verifiable indicators must be developed and proper baseline(s) be made.

The programme activities and logistic provide excellent opportunities for students – access to fieldwork, many relevant issues to study, excursion sites. These opportunities should be used more intensively. It may be consider to have a Small Grant Facility to support students doing smaller projects as part of their studies. Also, funding for more intern-positions may be considered.

Technologies Learning Centre (TLC) should be used much more intens-ively by university, communities and general public. More technologies should be on display – and tested by the participating communities.

Programme Implementation Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio: The radio is best maintained

as a regional Chilwa Basin Radio (rather than turning it into a national radio station), providing strong ownership and an excellent tool for basin-wide dialogue and coordination.

Fora for cross-sectoral and cross-district exchange of experiences (dis-trict officers, extension workers) should be held annually.

Involvement of agriculture, livestock, forestry, environment and NRM Districts extension workers is necessary, but also the health, education and gender departments in order to guarantee balanced gender and intra-household food and nutrition security situations.

Infrastructure: When infrastructure such as the solar dryers and smoking kilns for fish production is provided, make sure that ownership is always clear and documented.

Test plantations at FRIM (Zomba Mountain) and Chancellor College (Chirunga Forest Reserve): consider the feasibility to of apply applying Conservation Agriculture rather than traditional agriculture when making agreements with local communities regarding agriculture in the plots.

To strengthen the gender approach, at thorough assessment of the role of men and women must be made (should have been made at the begin-ning of the Programme), with the aim of providing clear directions for how to make households more resilient. The use of the Household Eco-nomy Approach is a good option.

Overall the Programme aims to reduce vulnerability and increase food-security among the population in the Basin. Targeted support to basin-wide Disaster Risk Management planning may be considered in a second phase.

The Programme adequately addresses flash-flood risks through replant-ing activities in the upper parts of the watersheds. However, it should be assessed if other measures are required in the upper watersheds, to complement tree planting (e.g. check-dams, infiltration ditches or other watershed management practices).

Conservation agriculture: Carefully revise the process, minimize or stop using herbicides (immediate stop to use herbicides banned in Europe such as Bullet); ensure that if herbicides are used, extension workers and farmers are well trained and equipped to do so. Consider if hybrid


maize is the right input, considering the dependency on buying seeds that it causes. Ensure robust monitoring and conduct impact studies. Develop a clear policy on herbicide use.

In a second phase, Programme capacity (in terms of scale) to imple-ment activities in the field may be increased. This may be done by hiring 1-3 well qualified field oriented staff, including at least one with a strong social-science profile who can up-scale the work in cooperation with the district officers and extension workers. It may also be considered to make a partnerships with a strong NGOs, but care should be given to maintain the overall programme approach (including the close coordina-tion with the Districts and the Extension system).

During the next phase, discussions on how future basin-wide coordina-tion should be organized may be facilitated by the Programme, and by the end of the second phase – or from the beginning of a third phase, a permanent structure may be in place to take over Programme manage-ment.

Recommendations regarding LEAD

LEAD should immediately take contact to the RNE in order to agree on future financial management procedures considering the change in status of LEAD.

LEAD is in a transition process and a plan for further institutional devel-opment of the organisation should be made as soon as possible. It should be considered to contract a short term external consultant to sup-port this process (may be hired using existing funds available in LCBCCAP).

Since the Chancellor University College no longer performs internal audits for LEAD, this role should be taken over by another entity to be identified as soon as possible.

Deloitte/RNE should review the draft Finance Manual in order to assess whether it complies with RNE requirements. And during the first year of operation as an independent entity, quarterly or bi-annual assessment of the finance management and reporting should be undertaken by Deloitte to ensure that – if needed – adjustments are made immediately.

Recommendations to the RNE

RNE, in cooperation with Deloitte, should meet with LEAD to agree on financial management procedures considering the change in status of LEAD.

Programme should be continued in a phase 2. A programme of this character needs to be supported for at least 10, preferably 15 years.



Of the University of Malawi

1 INTRODUCTIONThis report is the result of a Mid Term Review for the Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme in Malawi. The 35 million NOK, five year pro-gramme (2010-2014) is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented by the Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE) in Lilongwe, Malawi through the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Malawi and implemented by a consor-tium of three partners: Leadership for Development and Environment in Southern and Eastern Africa (now “The Registered Trustees of Leadership for Environ-ment and Development”, or in short LEAD), the Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) and the WorldFish Centre (WFC).

1.1 Review PurposeThe Terms of Reference (ToR) annexed to this report (Annex 1) describe the purpose of the Mid Term Review for Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adapta-tion Programme (LCBCCAP, or the “Programme”). Overall, the scope is to as-sess whether the project delivers what it has promised, its achievement of goals, objectives and expected outputs; to assess the institutional capacity of LEAD; and to provide recommendations and lessons learned to inform Norway´s de-cision making regarding future support to the Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. The review process involves an assessment according to standard review Criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.

The project was signed in December 2009 and was according to the agreement due to a mid-term review during the second quarter of 2012. Before the review was carried out a decision was made to merge three livelihoods projects (Malawi Lake Basin, TLC management for adaptations for climate change and the Lake Chilwa Basin project) into one harmonised and comprehensive project called HEAL. The HEAL was expected to start early 2013 and this meant that the Lake Cchilwa Programme had to be terminated closed prematurely. Consequently an “End-Review” of the programmes to be merged was undertaken. The actual mid-term review is conducted as a response to the recommendation by the 2013 review to conduct a review with more time for field-visits.The Review is called a Mid-term Review though it is almost coming to an end. This is caused by the expectation that the programme would merge with other programmes and form the Harmonisation for Enhanced Livelihoods (HEAL) Pro-gramme in early 2013. This made a mid-term review superfluous at that time, and instead a joint “End-Review” of the programmes to be merged was under-taken. However, since the HEAL process was cancelled, the need for a more in-debt “Mid-term” review remained.

1.2 The Review TeamThe review team comprised two international consultants:

Henrik Borgtoft Pedersen, Team Leader and NRM / CC specialist Aart van der Heide, Food Security and Livelihood Specialist.



Should be subject according to the agreement to a mid-term revue ...

1.3 Review MethodologyThe team was assigned 20 work days for each of the consultants. Four days were used for preparation and document review in home office, 11 days for the mission to Malawi (including international travel days), and five days to write the final report in home office.

The mission in Malawi took place from 23 March - 04 April 2014.

During the mission the team has met with relevant stakeholders throughout the basin including LEAD, WFC and FRIM, University institutions, Radio Chan-coChanco Community Radio, district authorities and technical services of plan-ning, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, environment, land resources and numerous community based committees, Radio Listeners Clubs, and groupings of farmers and fish-processing women. In Lilongwe briefing and debriefing took place at the Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE), a meeting was held with the Development Fund and a courtesy visit was paid to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment (who is also the Chairperson of the Programme Steering Commit-tee). The work included review of documents, semi-structured interviews with stake-holders, and focus group discussions. When possible and relevant, Programme staff was not involved during interviews in order to facilitate a more open-hearted discussion. A large number of project interventions in the field were visited (Fig. 1). During most of the programme the two consultants visited the same sites in order to allow for separate discussions with individuals or sub-groups. However, the team did split on some days in order to allow time for more discussions in the home offices of the Programme partners. Observations and information were documented in writing and through use of voice recorder, camera, and GPS.

The LCBCCAP project management team had prepared a detailed and dense mission programme that was discussed and adopted on arrival. Annex 2 provides the final programme for the mission, and Annex 3 provides the List of People Met. Documents consulted are listed in Annex 7.


Fig. 1. Sites visited during fieldwork in Lake Chilwa Basin, located with GPS (in some cases sites overlap). See Mission Programme in Annex 2. The electronic submission of the report will include a kmz file which provides the exact locations in Google Earth.

1.4 Constraints and LimitationsThe mayor constraint during the mission was time. The team transferred one preparation day and added it to the mission days, but even so the large number of sites in a large geographical area and the numerous stakeholders made it a challenge to cover it all in a representative way. The Mission programme did not leave much time for report writing and reflection during the trip, - but all field-sites were very interesting and added to the overall picture, so none should have been left out.

As for limitations, a review always presents a partial view of the programme un-der review – and generally the best sites are visited. But this is important, too, - it means we are shown what the Programme really intends to achieve and the efforts needed to do it. In general we feel that through the visits and the numer-ous interviews, meetings and documents revised, we have a good overview of the programme and its achievements, which allows us to provide a well-founded review report with solid conclusions and recommendations.

1.5 AcknowledgementThe team wishes to express our gratitude to the programme partners as well as the numerous stakeholders met during the review. Though we were sometimes in a hurry and had limited time to fully appreciate the hospitality shown by every-one we met, we were overwhelmed by their enthusiasm, their willingness to share information and their way of receiving two strangers in their communities and offices – a good indicator of the ownership they feel for the Programme in-terventions. Truly, Malawi is the Warm Heart of Africa, zikomo kwambiri!

2 THE PROGRAMME

2.1 History of the Programme

Ideas for a basin-wide intervention dates back at least to 1995-1996, when the Lake Chilwa last dried out and exposed the extreme vulnerability of the popula-tion during such events. In 1997, the lake and surrounding wetlands were de-clared a Ramsar site, and during the years 1998-2002 Danida (Denmark) sup-ported a number of interventions related to an integrated, sustainable manage-ment of the wetland and its resources. However, Danida pulled out in 2002, and a second phase of the programme was not implemented as initially foreseen. Since then – and until LCBCCAP started in 2010 – most interventions in the Basin have been more isolated, addressing specific (but important) issues rather than applying the holistic, basin-wide, multi-institutional and multi-sectoral ap-proach now applied by LCBCCAP.

Malawi approved the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for cli-mate change in 2008. Since there is no general climate change response pro-gramme with clear guidelines on the implementation of adaptation and mitigating measures – despite the existence of the NAPA – the LCBCCAP was designed to provide a good environment to test implementation of the NAPA. There is also no sentinel site in Malawi where climate change research and implementation of


adaptations are undertaken, and the programme activities in the Basin could help to fill this gap.

The LCBCCAP is an initiative of a group of Malawian researches working in aca-demic functions at the University of Malawi in Zomba. Four institutions developed the joint proposal together in 2009 and submitted it to Norad for funding. The four institutions were LEAD, at that time based at Chancellor College at the University of Malawi; Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM), the National Herbarium, and the WorldFish Centre (WFC). The National Herbarium, however, pulled out before the project started.

2.2 Lake Chilwa BasinThe Lake Chilwa Basin covers parts of the administrative Districts of Machinga, Zomba and Phalombe. It is a closed (endorheic) basin, with no outlet, where all rivers and streams flow towards Lake Chilwa (Fig. 2).

The Lake Chilwa Basin (entire catchment) covers an area of app. 8,400 km2, of which 5,700 km2 are in Malawi and 2,700 km2 in Mozambique. The lake and wetland may cover as much as 2,400 km2, however there are large fluctuations in size between years. In in normal years one third is open water, one third is swamp and marsh, and one third is floodplains (LCBCCAP).

The population in the basin was 1,192,800 in 2008; 1,265,440 in 2010 (when the Programme started), and is expected to reach 1,470,000 in 2014. The high pop-ulation growth ( + 3% per year while the national rate is 2.5%), in an already densely populated region, adds enormous pressure on the natural resources. In combination with changes in rainfall patterns (precipitation becoming more er-ratic) this leads to a strong increase in vulnerability and a precarious food secur-ity situation in the Basin.

Fig. 2. Programme model of the Basin, in which the mountains, rivers, wetlands and the lake are

visibly distinguished.


2.3 BeneficiariesThe primary beneficiaries of the project are the 3,262 households within the 10 hotspots selected by the Programme. These households have an average of 5.2 person/household according to WFC. The households are classified according to levels of vulnerability (see vulnerability map, fig. 3). They are also representing the various community-based committees, radio listeners clubs and different groups of farmers and fish processing women.

The secondary group of beneficiaries are the technical staff members of the district extension workers of agriculture, forestry, and land resources manage-ment, and the technical services of the three districts involved. These extension workers are trained with support from the Programme and play an important role in the delivery services and implementation of field activities with the the primary beneficiaries.


Fig. 3. The map prepared by LCBCCAP shows the different vulnerability gradations and also how the hotspots are divided within the various levels of vulnerability (from 1=yellow till 1,378=red).

2.4 Programme Goal and ObjectivesThe Review Team considers the Inception Report from May 2010 with the Revised Log Frame and M&E Matrix as the valid programme document to refer to, since it includes agreed modifications to the Programme proposal from 2009. According to the Inception report the Goal of the programme is to improve and sustain livelihoods of the 1.4 million people in the Lake Chilwa basin; and the purpose is to develop and implement a basin-wide climate change adaptation strategy that builds resilience of people, institutions and natural resources.

The Inception Report includes 4 specific objectives of the Programme:


1) To strengthen local and district institutions to better manage natural re-sources and build resilience to climate change;

2) To facilitate and help build cross-basin and cross-sector natural resource management and planning for climate change throughout the Basin;

3) To improve household and enterprise adaptive capacity in Basin hotspots; and

4) To mitigate the effects of climate change through improved forest manage-ment and governance.

The objectives are closely linked and many activities supports several objectives: e.g. Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio supports all four objectives, as does the strengthening of local institutions; support to improved smoking kilns increases income (obj. 3) but at the same time saves fuel-wood (Obj. 4).

These objectives are to be achieved through the five programme outputs: Output 1: Capacity of local and district institutions to plan, implement and

monitor integrated climate change adaptations increased. Output 2: Integrated management plan for Lake Chilwa basin hotspots

developed and implemented Output 3: Vulnerability of Basin households reduced through improved

and diversified livelihoods and natural resource management Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased. Output 5: Monitoring and Evaluation system developed and implemen-

ted.

2.5 Programme ApproachThe Programme has adapted the Ecosystem Approach for a holistic, basin-wide intervention, involving a large number of stakeholders. A key aspect of the ap-proach is to implement the Programme through the decentralized structures within the District Assemblies of the three districts in the Basin. Those structures, which are anchored in the national decentralization policy, include the District Assemblies, District Environmental Sub-committees (DESC), Village Natural Recourse Management Committees (VNRMC), Beach Village Committees (BVC) and Traditional Authorities (TA). Through involvement and empowerment of the local structures, the Programme expects to facilitate sustainable and cli-mate resilient Natural Resource Management (NRM) in the Basin.

The Programme also cooperates with research institutions and intends to facilit-ate research and studies at different levels, in order to, supported by a strong research-oriented monitoring system, identify and document best practices.

Through a participatory process within each District the Programme has– selec-ted 10 hotspot areas where field level interventions are focussed. The hotspots represent a number of different ecological zones with different degree of vulner-ability, and together they reflect the numerous and diverse challenges facing people and environment in the Basin. In this way, the interventions, if well mon-itored and documented, will produce important lessons learned for the develop-ment in the Basin and elsewhere, and the hotspots can serve as both demon-


stration areas and as centres from where best practices can spread. Fig. 3 shows location of the hotspots and associated vulnerabilities.

The large and diverse group of stakeholders, the extensive geographical cover-age and the focus on hotspots located throughout the basin rather than in a more concentrated area are thus fundamental components of the approach. Com-pared to other programmes / projects, which may be operating in a smaller area, with more focused interventions (e.g. “only” Conservation Agriculture in a de-termined area), and with external staff hired specifically for that purpose, the LCBCCAP approach is complex. However, the very idea of the Programme is to facilitate a cross-basin ecosystem-based approach, involving empowerment and capacity building of stakeholders at different levels, and to work through existing structures. By doing so, the Programme helps to build or strengthen an important framework for all the more narrowly focussed interventions done by other pro-grammes/projects. Thus, the approach is complementary to other approaches and fills an important gap, as the Review Team sees it.

2.6 Programme ManagementThe consortium implementing the LCBCCAP consists of three entities: LEAD, WFC and FRIM with LEAD as the overall responsible for the Programme. Initially a fourth partner was considered (National Herbarium) and also it was foreseen that WFC should be the lead organisation. However, the National Herbarium never entered, and during the inception phase it was decided that the Malawi based LEAD, rather than the international, Malaysia-based WFC should lead, and budgets were re-arranged accordingly.

The overall set-up consists of a Project Management team comprising the heads of the three partners and led by the Programme Coordinator (Prof. Sosten ChioyaChiotha), a Programme Manager responsible for day to day PM activities (Welton Phalira, based at LEAD), a Project Management Committee (PMC), and a Programme Steering Committee (PSC). See Annex 5 for composition and mandate of the PMC and the PSC.

The total staff involved (excluding interns at the Radio ChancoChanco Com-munity Radio) from the three partners are 42. Of those 24 are professionals, 11 are technical and 7 are administration and support. The distribution on institu-tions: LEAD: 13, FRIM 21, WFC 8. Eighteen are funded through LCBCCAP, 24 (including all from FRIM) are funded from other sources, principally Government. See Annex 6 for details on staff.

2.7 Programme ExpendituresThe overall funding for the 5-year programme is 35 Million NOK. Programme expenditures figures in % of budget are: for 2013 (78%), for 2012 (81%), for 2011 (87%), and for 2010 (53%). Total expenditure till end of 2013 is 71%(fig-ures based on information from the LEAD Finance and Administration Unit). Considering the low spending the first year and the delays caused by partly ex-ternal factors , spending shows a medium – high capacity to implement the budget. Since many bottleneck/barriers in the financial management have been reduced or eliminated, efficiency in a second phase is likely to improve.


Since almost 30 % of the total budget remains for 2014, the Programme will be able to extend well into 2015 in case additional time is needed for preparation and appraisal of a new Phase 2 Programme Document

2.8 Previous ReviewsA technical review of the programme was conducted in February 2013 by ORGUT Consulting AG as part of the preparation of the HEAL Programme. The main recommendations made from by the review are inserted below. Some mainly refer to the expected new context, however, most were also relevant for LCBCCAP in the actual scenario, where the programmes did not merge. Most issues are also touch-upon in this report, but for clarity short comments/status in relation to each point are provided in italics.

Recommendations to LCBCCAP from the 2013 review Focus on LCBCCAP strengths in a future HEAL programme. These are

in particular the radio listening clubs and the prospects for radio and TV station, the M&E system and the programme ability to contribute know-ledge through research and studies. The Radio (Chanco Community Ra-dio, now established) and the M&E system are also very important com-ponents in the actual programme, and should be so in a second phase.

Further develop the M&E system. Still relevant: As it will be discussed in this report, the M&E system is well developed, but not functioning as planned, especially since impacts are not monitored and the envisioned transparency (link to website) has not been implemented. Focus should be maintained on this.

Enhance quality of field activity. Engage a competent NGO if ambitions on field activity are to be retained. While the quality of field activities in many cases are good, the scale is still limited. This should be addressed in a second phase, as discussed in this report.

Analyse critically the capital input requirement and risks associated with an approach to Conservation Agriculture which is based on high levels of purchased inputs, like hybrid seed and agro-chemicals. Appropriate steps to address this issue have not yet been taken, and this review re-peats and further elaborates on this.

Embark on a more concentrated approach in the field. The present re-view considers the basin-wide, holistic an important characteristic of this programme, and do not recommend a more concentrated approach in geographical nor thematic terms.

Possibly reduce emphasis on areas far from the lake as interventions there may not impact much on the lake. While the lake is important to the livelihood of many people in the Basin, the Programme goal is to address livelihood aspects in the entire basin, and the actual review finds that also areas distant to the lake – still within the basin – should be addressed.

Streamline financial management among partners. Still highly relevant, but important improvements have been made.

Include in reports also how the Programme relates to other donor funded activities. Clarify also if other activities funded by RNE should be merged into the reporting on LCBCCAP. Remains relevant, the role of the programme – as an overarching “umbrella” programme means that it is highly relevant to coordinate with other donor activities in the area. Cooperation with actual or future RNE funded activities may help to extend the scale of the field activities.


Recommendations to RNE in relation to LCBCCAP from the 2013 review: Review contractual arrangements. The Team’s view is that a condition

for the progression into HEAL is that the current complex institutional arrangements be streamlined. Though the HEAL process has been can-celled, it is still relevant to look at the institutional setting. The recent change in status of LEAD (now an independent legal entity) requires new arrangements even within the present phase. xx

A competent NGO will have to be engaged if ambitions on field activity are to be retained. Measures to upgrade/scale field activities are still relevant and also addressed in this Review

Carry out an additional evaluation of the programme that has better al-location of time for field work to better document quality and quantity of activity at field level. The actual review has been implemented in re-sponse to this recommendation.

Conduct a focussed audit to clarify routines and timeliness of disburse-ments among the current LCBCCAP partners. Other specific details for such audit to look into include the internal financial reporting between the current LCBCCAP partners. While internal coordination, including timeliness of disbursement has improved as discussed in this review, focus on improving the cooperation should be maintained. No formal procedures for cooperation with partners has yet been established. The new status of LEAD may smoothen procurement and other procedures. An internal audit commissioned by the RNE found provided an unquali-fied audit report.

Generally as a donor, demand better analysis in the early programme stages to avoid too significant deviation between originally proposed plans and revised plans. While the Inception Report with the Log-frame and M&E framework (in this review considered the main Programme Document), differs in a number of ways from the original Proposal, this is a normal process and the need for adjustments will always exist. It is, however, important that updates – if/when made are approved by the Programme Steering Committee and the RNE. This is still relevant.

There should be one version of the fundamental documents that is valid and used for purposes and evaluations and other follow up. See above.

3 FINDINGS

3.1 Institutional Assessment of LEADThis section provides an overview or findings related to LEAD and its intuitional situation and capacity. The full assessment produced as part of this review is provided in Annex 4.

LEAD is legally registered as an independent trust in Malawi under the name of “The Registered Trustee of Leadership for Environment and Development” ac-cording to Certificate of Incorporation dated 02 February 2014.

In late 2013 LEAD moved out of the office at Chancellor College of the University of Malawi into a rented office in Zomba. This process towards independence from the university structure is partly a response to the 2013 review recommend-ing a more clear definition of roles between the University and LEAD. Before


LEAD was organized as a centre within the University of Malawi/ Chancellor College through endorsement by the University Senate.

LEAD expects to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Chancellor College very soon, outlining the conditions for the new relationship. According to LEAD management, this MoU may include some level of support/control with financial management or support with large procurements, if so required by the RNE.

LEAD operates in a network with LEAD International and other LEAD Member Programmes, but are financially and legally independent from those. There is no sharing of manpower, administrative support, or transfer of funds between LEAD in Malawi and LEAD International – or between Member Programmes, unless when specific agreement about specific projects are made.

LEAD has established a Board with 6 members, all Malawians, and has a consti-tution approved by the Board.

LEAD has a staff of 8 professionals and 6 Administrative support staff + plus a number of interns. App. roximately half part of the staff is financed through LCBCCAP.

3.1.1 Financial systemUntil recently, financial management has followed the Chancellor College pro-cedures, and procurement was done through the Chancellor College, following the Public Procurement Act 2003. However, since registering as an independent trust in February, LEAD has done its own procurement (only minor procurements have taken pace so far). LEAD has prepared a draft Finance Manual which is expected to be approved on a board meeting in May 2014. Until the manual is approved by the Board, LEAD uses a blend of the management procedures from Chancellor College, LEAD International – and the draft manual.

The Finance and Administration unit is well structured, with a head and two as-sistants. The unit has demonstrated its ability to handle the LCBCCAP accounts as well as the general financial management of LEAD. Also, the Review team considers that LEAD unit will be able to undertake procurement on its own through the internal procurement committee. The internal Audit unit of Chancellor College has previously undertaken internal audits of LEAD as outlined in the Inception report. However, after separating from the university, this function needs to be filled by another entity to be identified by LEAD and approved by the RNE.

Each member of the LCBCCAP consortium, including LEAD, has its own pro-curement committee. In LEAD the four members of the committee evaluate doc-uments for supply of goods/services and make recommendations for the Pro-gramme Manager to endorse, to be finally approved by the Programme Coordin-ator.

LEAD is audited by AMG Global Audit Company (since 2009). Reports from 2011-12-13 have only raised minor issues in relation to the financial manage-


ment at LEAD, and those issues have been addressed. Overall, the financial management system is well functioning, but LEAD urgently needs to formalise all procedures in the new institutional setting and re-establish an internal audit func-tion. An independent audit commissioned by the RNE and implemented by Deloitte provided an unqualified (i.e. “clean” ) audit report.

3.1.2 Financial capability and viabilityFunding for LCBCCAP is an important source of income for LEAD. The Pro-gramme funds represent between half and two-thirds of the annual turnover (only the LEAD share of the LCBCCAP funding is considered), and more than half the staff is financed through the programme. The low disbursement for LCBCCAP in 2012 seen in the Table is partly due to a bridging period during the HEAL prepar-ation process.

2010 2011 2012LEAD activities except LCBCAP (USD) 422,000.00 678,000.00 602,000.00LCBCCAP (USD) 1,209,000.00 1,260,000.00 688,000.00Total (USD) 1,631,000.00 1,938,000.00 1,290,000.00LCBCCAP in % of total 74 65 53

Sources of funding for LEAD. Source: LEAD Finance and Administration Unit.

The large dependency on one or a few sources of funding exposes the organisa-tion to the risk of suddenly being almost without funding. However, since its fin-ancial independence from LEAD International in 2003, LEAD has been able to continue operating with funds from different sources and has proven its viability in spite of limited income diversification.

For the LCBCCAP, spending until end of December 2013 accounts for 71% of the total budget for the 5 years according to figures provided by the Finance and Administration Unit of LEAD. While spending may be below the expected spend-ing at this point, it is still acceptable considering a slow start, slow procurement processes through the university, problems with transference of funds to FRIM (not caused by LEAD) and the reduction in spending the programme had during the HEAL preparation process.

Overall, LEAD has shown capability in terms of budget implementation and viab-ility in terms of adjusting to the actual situation.

3.1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation / QA proceduresLEAD does not have an overall system to monitor performance of the organisa-tion, but uses project-specific monitoring in relation to each project / programme they are involved in (see section on monitoring for information on the LCBCCAP monitoring system). There are no written Quality Assurance procedures for the organisation to be followed in project management and delivery.


3.1.4 HR managementStaff members are hired through competitive processes (announcement in the press, interviews, selection based on merits). They are employed on fixed-term contracts, generally for one or two years, renewable if funds are available. Annu-ally an open appraisal is done with each employee by the LEAD Director, but no formal staff evaluation system is in place. Work descriptions for the different pos-itions are included in the ToR used when hiring the staff members, but no up-dated overview / compilation of work descriptions exists. No formal staff develop-ment policy or procedures are used, but staff members frequently participate in seminars, conferences etc. The staff is dedicated and competent and all the professional staff have degrees at least on master level.

3.1.5 Strategic plans and policiesStrategic Plans for LEAD 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 have been developed. The Constitution of LEAD establishes the objectives/ mission of the organisation.The organisation does not have a Business Integrity Management statement or manual.

In relation to LCBCCAP, annual plans, budgets and implementation strategy have been prepared for 2011 and 2012 and uploaded to the Programme web-site. Less elaborate budgets and plans (excel sheets) have been prepared for 2013 and 2014, but not made available on the website. According to the LCBCCAP, the 2013 and 2014 plans and budget still await the approval of the RNE and this is given as the reason for not uploading the plans to the website.In relation to LCBCCAP, annual plans, budgets and implementation strategy have been prepared for 2011 and 2012 and uploaded to the Programme website. However, similar plans are missing for 2013 and 2014 (but budgets are available). Overall, the Programme is guided by the Log-frame for the Programme inserted in the 2010 Inception Report.

3.1.6 Office facilitiesLEAD is now operating from rented office facilities in Zomba city. The facilities consist of a main building, app. 250 m2 with 5 offices, board room, 2 restrooms, reception, small kitchen and a storeroom. An annex of app. 30 m2 holds three offices. The area has a large garden and is surrounded by a wall. They have security arrangements (guard) at the gate. Offices are well equipped, all staff members have computers, there is access to copy / print facilities. Internet is fluctuating in strength, but is generally accessible.

3.1.7 LEAD WebsiteThe website (www.leadsea.mw ) is potentially an important tool for sharing information, and for transparency and accountability. The LEAD website, however, has not been updated for several years, and many links to documents are missing or misleading.

3.1.8 Operational CapacityLEAD has, in general terms, been able to produce the outputs expected from the organisation and to report on those (financially and technically) in a timely manner. The small organisation is able to act in a flexible manner and rapidly



Please, made the english better.

http://www.leadsea.mw/

adjust if conditions are changing. They have shown that they are able to head the Programme interventions in the Basin in a competent way, overcoming many of the challenges associated with a complex programme with many stakeholders in a large geographical area. There is, however a need for further institutional development during the present transition phase (moving from the University of Malawi to an independent Trust).

3.2 Coordination Among Implementing PartnersCoordination and planning are done within the formal set-up described in the Programme Document and adjusted in the Inception report. The set-up includes a Programme Manager based at LEAD, the PMC and the PSC. In addition, in-ternal coordination activities take place on different levels, not outlined in any document, but with some degree of consistency. Those levels include:

Management group: Directors from the three partners meet regularly (4-5 times per month according to the Programme Coordinator) and corres-pond frequently by e-mail. Overall planning issues are dealt with, how-ever formal agenda and minutes from those meetings are generally not produced and shared among staff members.

Accountants and technical staff from the three partners meet frequently in order to prepare quarterly reports. The reports are presented to the Programme managers before taken to PMC. After approval in the PMC they are submitted to the RNE.

At the quarterly PMC meetings the members review reports and programme activities, and planning is done for the next quarter. The PMC include Directors of Planning from the Districts and is an important fora for coordination of activit-ies in the Basin. Responsibilities of the PMC are well defined (See Annex 5).

The PSC meets biannually in order to provide overall policy guidance and ap-prove work plans, budgets and work plans. Responsibilities of the PSC are well defined (See Annex 5). PSC plays an active role in policy development and is able to feed lessons learned from the Programme into the national policy level.

Overall, the different levels of coordination are working after several years of practising, and they provide room for adequate and relatively flexible coordina-tion within and between the levels. However, no manual or guidelines for co-ordination, planning and implementation have been produced (except for the description of roles and responsibilities of the PMC and the PSC). Lack of clear guidance governing the cooperation appears to have caused some friction among partners and delays in transfer of funds and project implementation. One example is the use of delay of transfers from LEAD to partners when progress reporting has not been timely, - partners have not always agreed to this ap-proach.

Also, lack of or limited use of agendas and minutes from the coordination on managers level and accountant/technicians meetings opens up for different inter-pretations of agreements made during the meetings. More standardized proced-ures for cooperation as well as use of agenda/minutes from meetings between partners may ensure a more smooth coordination.


Other problems or bottleneck in PM, coordination and implementation that have influenced programme effectiveness and efficiency negatively, include:

Funds for FRIM went into a pool-account in the Ministry (standard gov-ernment procedure), while auditors required a programme-specific ac-count. Transfer to FRIM was stopped for some time, but eventually the issue was solved and FRIM now has a special account for Programme funds.

Initially, WFC also used a pool account, - this has also been resolved, but some delays in finance reporting and during audits still happen, be-cause the head office is in Malaysia and this sometimes give time-lag in communication, and also exchange rate fluctuations have delayed the reconciliation of financial statements.problems in reconciliation in finan-cial reports due to varying exchange rates. These are minor issues, but sometimes cause delays.

While involved staff from WSF WFC and LEAD receive salaries from the LCBCCAP, the government employees from FRIM are not allowed to have additional benefits (topping-up of salary). This is government policy and must be respected, but initially caused some complaints from FRIM and slowed down certain activities in the beginning, partly due to limited incentives provided, partly due to the fact that the staff was already in-volved in many other activities (and additional staff was not hired for the programme). Lunch allowances, however, may be provided. The solu-tion is outside Programme control, and it appears that FRIM has accep-ted the conditions and provide solid inputs to the Programme (from the Forestry Departments side, the Programme funded activities are con-sidered important as they are within the mandate of the Department and help the Department to fulfil its obligations).

The frequent and detailed audit system was new to FRIM and initially caused delays during audits (which in turn delayed imbursements from the RNE), however, a new accountant has been transferred to FRIM and for the last year accounting has worked well.

The HEAL process affected both planning and implementation, partly due to limited funding (involved two bridging phases with restricted spending), partly because it changed shifted focus from the actual pro-gramme implementation of the actual programme towards the HEALjoint programme and impeded consistent long term planning for some time.

In some cases transfer from the RNE has been insufficient or late due to poor planning/late requests from the Programme. While this seems to have improved, it should receive constant attention from the Programme management.

Procurement through the Chancellor College has sometimes been very slow, the programme management expects faster procurement following the independence of LEAD.

The transfer in an early stage of the activities regarding Conservation Agriculture from FRIM to LEAD has probably increased effectiveness and efficiency since it was outside the mandate of FRIM, and LEAD hired a professional staff member to take care of this area.. Hiring of a professional member of staff in CA has also strengthened the capacity and improved the efficiency as recommended by PSC



Employing of an agronomist


Influenced the reconciliation etc. In a negative way.

The above aspects, many of which are outside of or only partly within Pro-gramme control have caused both coordination problems and delay in pro-gramme implementation. However, in general actions have been taken to reduce the problems and facilitate a more efficient programme management and imple-mentation.

3.3 Studies and ResearchLEAD has close link to Chancellor College (and was until recently embedded in the university structure). FRIM is a Research Institution, and also WFC carries out research activities. This provides an excellent background for a strong re-search component in the programme, enabling high quality studies to be pro-duced, documenting impact of different interventions on livelihood, environment – and the relevance in relation to climate change. However, no clear research agenda has been prepared by the Programme, and though many interesting studies have been conducted, they appear somewhat scattered and do not al-ways provide information of use for directing / improving the interventions.

The quality of the studies appears in general to be good, but a structured review process of both popular and more research oriented papers and reports seems to be absent; many technical/editorial errors can be observed in the documents.

At the university level climate change and related issues have been integrated in the curriculum of the Master of Environmental Science programme at the Chancellor College, and students and researchers have been involved in some programme supported activities. The Programme has supported two MSc and one PhD student who have focussed their thesis on Programme relevant issues:

Community Management of Forest Resources - A case study of Forest Co-management in Zomba-Malosa Forest Reserve (PhD Gerald Meke).

Analysing the Spatial and Temporal Trends of Rainfall and Temperature in the Lake Chilwa Basin (M.Sc Henry Utila).

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis in the Lake Chilwa Basin (M.Sc Wil-lie Sagona).

In general, both students and researchers from the university could benefit more from the programme: there are many interesting research subjects, and the Pro-gramme has established good contacts and has the logistic in place (travelling frequently to the hotspots). However, this opportunity seems underexploited and should be promoted more.

At FRIM, Programme relevant studies and research are undertaken in relation to species selection and growth, and the Programme has financed the rehabilitation of the Soil-lab, enabling research on e.g. changes in soil composition as a con-sequence of conservation agriculture (CA) or tree planting. Analysis of samples has been made, but no systematic studies of soil changes under CA have been done.

Also, two staff members from WFC are Developing their PhD and Master thesis based on programme relevant issues (Development issues on Chisi Island; Eco-nomic efficiency of improved fish smoking kilns).


The project website www.lakechilwaproject.mw provides a number of publica-tions and studies prepared by the Programme partners. However, in the various annual reports a number of studies are mentioned which are not available on the website. Though this list of documents on the website is quite extensive, the documents are mainly Programme related documents – for instance logical frame work, annual reports, surveys, etc.

The programme has supported the establishment of a Technologies Learning Centre (TLC) under the Chancellor College (financed construction of building, equipment for fuel-briquette production, paper recycling, simple household-level biogas plants). The idea is to develop, test and/or demonstrate appropriate tech-nologies.

The Centre can be used by staff and students from the university as well as com-munity members. Community members are preparing briquettes (from recycled paper and leaves) and paper folders and cards from recycled paper for selling. They use the facilities free of charge. The Physics Department is presently look-ing into biogas production (cheap household level “plastic-bag” plants). So far, student’s involvement from the university has been limited.

The overall idea with the centre is interesting and relevant, - providing a space for applied research and the possibility to involve students and communities and provide solutions that can be spread through the programme. Presently, how-ever, the impression is that the Centre is not yet used intensively. Obvious tech-nologies (readily available) such as cook stoves designed for optimal use of fuel briquettes were not found on the centre.

3.4 Baseline StudiesAccording to the Logical Framework in the Inception Report, 5 baseline studies will be conducted (vegetation, livelihood, biodiversity, stakeholder analysis, fish-eries), and according to the Programme website this has been achieved. The stakeholder analysis has been made as have other studies, including a good livelihood identification study, which was presented as a baseline study. From a methodological point of view, a livelihood identification study is not the same as a baseline study and cannot replace that. An important difference is that a baseline study is in fact the first determination of the quantitative or qualitative value of a number of pre-selected indicators. This is not done in a livelihood study.

The review team finds that proper baseline studies have not been done and that again means that no objective impact can be measured from the start of the pro-gramme.

3.5 Monitoring and EvaluationThe programme has set up an ambitious, elaborate, web-based monitoring sys-tem including a well prepared M&E framework with detailed targets and indicat-ors for both results and impacts.

The system has been well planned and prepared for a high degree of transpar-ency by linking directly from the monitoring system to the Programme Website (http://www.lakechilwaproject.mw/me.php ). However, the link between the sys-tem and the website has never worked and there is no in-house capacity to fix it.


http://www.lakechilwaproject.mw/me.php

http://www.lakechilwaproject.mw/

The M&E Framework in the Inception Report gives a good number of clear input, result and impact indicators. The input and result indicators have been measured during the first 4 years of the programme – but the impact indicators have not been measured at all. Also, input and results are only measured quantitatively – and not qualitatively i.e. the M&E system is not measuring or following the quality and performance of those indicators. This means for example that we know that the training or the capacity building has taken place, but we do not know the quality of the training – and much less the impact of it.

From the Programme management side it was explained that the absence of impact monitoring was due to cancellation of a planned mid-term review. The review team fails to see the linkage.

The lack of proper baseline studies further complicates the monitoring of im-pacts.

In short, the M&E system is in place, it is very ambitious, but it has not been used as intended; while it does provide solid data at the result level, it does not monitor impact. The M&E Framework, updated on the request from the Review team, is included in Annex 8.

3.6 GenderAccording to the Inception Report, a Gender and social Development Expert would form part of the Programme staff, and work on mainstreaming gender issues in the Programme activities. This expert however, resigned early during the first year, and though another development professional did enter the Pro-gramme, it has meant less focus on gender issues than expected. According to the Inception Report, a Gender and social Development Expert would form part of the Programme staff, and work on mainstreaming gender issues in the Pro-gramme activities. This expert did not enter the Programme, and this has meant less focus on gender issues than expected.

Gender aspects are, however, not absent in the Programme. Activities include: Training of staff members on gender mainstreaming in the Programme Income generating activities with strong focus on women and women’s

groups General balanced participation of both men and women in most activit-

ies In selection of tree species for replanting both women’s, men’s and chil-

dren perceptions of useful species were included Study on how climate change is perceived among women, men and

youth

The Programme M&E system provides data on number of women and women’s groups participating in the activities, however, no specific indicators on gender have been established. It is not known how the activities impacted the wellbeing of women in general and on households in particular, - did the activities lead to a more gender balanced distribution of responsibilities within the households? Did they help to empower women?



There is now no gender expert. WFC tries to introduce their Gender Transformation approach.


Should be part of the

However, what is clear is that women participated very actively in the project in the various CA demonstration site, the VNRM committees, the various radio listeners clubs and the various income generating improving activities such as fish processing, poultry, piggery and reforestation, and also that they expressed great satisfaction with the support from the Programme.

3.7 Selected Achievements in Relation to Outputs

3.7.1 Output 1: Increased local capacity The Programme has supported capacity building on many levels in the Basin. It has been carried out directly by one of the three consortium partners or through district structures (district officers and extension workers) and lead farmers or in partnership with the NGO Emanuel International.

In the District organisational structure the training of district officers has been limited to a TOT course on climate change adaptation and mitigation for selected participants, whereas selected extension workers have also received training in specific Programme relevant activities (e.g. Conservation Agriculture). Most ca-pacity building, however, has been on-the -job training, through participation in Programme activities. No detailed Training Needs Assessment was done before the training. No formal training on central issues as Ecosystem based ap-proaches; Integrated NRM or Payment for Ecosystem Services has been made.

At local and village level intensive training and capacity building have been car-ried out in selected communities and have involved farmer/livestock groups; Women Fish Processing Clubs; Radio Listeners Clubs; BVCs, and VNRMCs in the hotspot areas. Training has covered climate change, establishment of VN-RMCs, tree planting, conservation farming, income generation (diversification, improvements), and production of radio programmes. Training has mainly been done through the District officers with help from their extension workers, but with financial and technical support from the Programme. In participating communit-ies capacity for sustainable NRM and governance as well as CC resilient devel-opment in general appear to have been increased significantly, but again, whereas the number of training events etc. are documented, the impact of the capacity building has never been measured.

The Chanco Radio Chanco Community Radioprovides important and very context relevant information for improved livelihood and is an important tool in the overall capacity development, including inter-community exchange of experi-ences, in the Basin. Also, the radio itself serves to train students from the univer-sity (presently 6 full time internships are financed through the Programme, selec-ted among 51 applicants).

3.7.2 Output 2: Integrated management plan for LCB developed and implemen-ted This outputs include activities related to the overall cross-basin and cross sec-toral NRM (i.e. the Objective 2: To facilitate and help build cross-basin and cross-sector natural resource management and planning for climate change throughout the Basin).


The Programme has increased cross-basin cooperation / coordination signific-antly, and Programme activities are planned in close collaboration with District Authorities. The identification of hotspots – including the challenges facing the people in the hotspots, was also done in a participatory process, involving both authorities and local communities.

Cooperation between districts. District Planning Directors from the three dis-tricts are part of the PMC. This provides a forum for dialogue regarding basin-wide development and enables District requirements to be integrated in the Pro-gramme planning – and facilitates the basin-wide Ecosystem approach-thinking and climate change adaptation to be mainstreamed in the Districts development planning. Annual meetings are organized for each technical sector in the Districts (i.e. District agricultural officers from the different districts meet) to promote cross-basin coordination. However, in spite of the ecosystem based, cross-sec-toral approach promoted by the Programme, there is not a structured system for technicians from all sectors in the district offices to meet in a cross-sectoral forum in order to exchange experiences and to benefit from each other’s lessons learned and develop new ideas.

District commissioners are members of the PSC and meet bi-annually to discuss and coordinate basin-wide. It appears that the PSC is indeed used for such co-ordination as well as for support to policy development, and there are even con-siderations that the committee could form the platform for a future Basin Trust or a similar entity. The Programme has also arranged several Basin-wide fora which have been aired on national TV and Radio.

Chanco Community Radio is now fully operational, has all infrastructure in place and has been broadcasting since July 2013 (licensed since August 2012). A new board (including, but not limited to, representatives from Chancellor Col-lege) has recently been approved and will soon be operational. A MoU between Chancellor College and LEAD will be prepared, detailing the hosting arrange-ment with the intension to satisfy both parties. Presently the Radio is run with the support of three staff seconded from Malawi Broadcasting Cooperation (MBC) and six interns. A full time manager will be contracted by the new Board and replaces the manager from MBC.

The plan for the future is to run the radio with a trust as licence holder in order to protect the independence. The name of the radio (Chanco) is short for Chancel-lor College. A name with reference to the Basin’s name would have been more appropriate (e.g. Radio Chilwa). The programmes broadcasted by Chanco Radio Chanco Community Radioplay a very important role in distribution of basin-wide information and in facilitating dialogue (sms; calls) across the Basin. Presently, the radio signals can be received in 70% of the Basin according to a survey done in 2013. It is expected that cooperation with Airtel (tele-company) will allow the use of their masts for a small fee, increasing coverage of the radio. A plan for television broadcasting has also been made.

The ten Radio Listeners Clubs (one in each hotspot) formed through the Pro-gramme provide interesting and context relevant programmes with very simple means (basic training, voice recorder, bicycles), and at the same time the Clubs


have become environmental ambassadors in their areas; - this is value for money at its best!

The radio has partnered with several organisations (including Save the Children; Pakachere; Farm Radio Trust; MBC Radio), who are now broadcasting from the station, and paying to do so. Such partnerships are important elements in the long term financial sustainability and help the Radio fulfil its requirements to broadcast at least 11 hours per day.

Presently it is discussed in LCBCCAP whether Radio ChancoChanco Com-munity Radio should become a national station, and also be used by the other partners in the new Network for Enhanced Livelihoods (NEAL, a network of Pro-grammes supported by the RNE). Going national may help the long-term finan-cial sustainability of the radio, however, a consequence may be that the strong impact the radio has in the Basin could be reduced; it appears that the fact that it is a local, Lake Chilwa Basin radio, broadcasting information with a strong local angel, is important to the listeners – and makes it part of what binds the Basin together. This could be lost if the radio becomes a national station. Hotspot management plans: The output 2 is an Integrated plan for Lake Chilwa hotspots are developed and implemented. However, detailed hotspot manage-ment plans have not been developed, though overview of issues to address in each hotspot has been prepared. Many of the identified challenges are now ad-dressed through the activities related to output 1,3,4, but the hotspot-wide plans as such do not exist. Their existence – and a monitoring of their implementation, - could provide important lessons learned for a realistic, basin-wide management plan.

3.7.3 Output 3: Improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity and resi-lienceThe Programme aims to improve the resilience – or reduce the vulnerability - of people, communities and enterprises to hazards caused by external factors like climate change or climate variability (e.g. erratic precipitation and extreme rainfall events), and to internal factors such as reduced access to natural resources due to unsustainable NRM and increasing demands from a rapidly growing popula-tion.

Vulnerability means to be vulnerable to degradation. Vulnerability of households in Malawi is recognised by governmental institutions in general as meaning to be vulnerable to lack of sufficient and also clean drinking water; to the normal avail-ability and access of sufficient food products (this is the market indicator); to the access, distance, quality of services and/or basic medication and the services for health care for under five children; to the availability of, the distance to, the gender enrolment of education and finally to the food security indicators such as yields, stocks, duration of the lean period, malnutrition etc.

The vulnerability to these “situations” is generally determined through the map-ping of vulnerability. In 2012 the WFC carried out a detailed vulnerability map-ping of the entire basin and indicated the 10 hotspots on the maps. The degree of vulnerability was measured through a “composite” indicator in which all ele-


ments indicated in the former paragraph were represented and shown on the map in different colours.

The exercise was only carried out in 2012 and not repeated. A series of a min-imum of two vulnerability maps per year – for the whole project period it would make 10 in total – would have given the LCBCCAP an excellent tool for compar-ing the vulnerability of households to the different situations such as WATSAN, market situation, health situation, education situation and food security situation etc. The fact that this was not carried out deprived the Programme of a tool for impact through the vulnerability of the households in the hotspot by comparing it with the households outside the hotspots.

Given the importance the Programme attributes to the households (HH) it must also be mentioned that no assessment was made of the intra-household living conditions and quality of live, including issues like: The specific food and nutrition security indicators such as nutritional status of most vulnerable groups within the HH – the under-five children and mothers in the age of reproduction, the WATSAN situation, existence of HIV-AIDS within the HH, people living with AIDS, feeding practices, gender awareness and gender equality, level of gender transformation etc.

The Programme does not take these intra-household data into account though they are fundamental for a programme, striving for a better environment and strengthening resilience against effects of climate change in order to have posit-ive sustainable results.

However, though impact data are missing, the Review Team found that in all the communities visited by the Team, the different individuals, groups and commit-tees clearly expressed their satisfaction about the interventions, which they per-ceived as making positive changes in their lives.

The interventions supported by the Programme under this output involve the main economic sectors in the Basin; agriculture, fisheries and livestock and fo-cus on diversification and / or improvement of production and income generating activities through Conservation Agriculture, Poultry and Pig rearing; Value addi-tion; Improved fish processing and marketing, and improved NRM through the VNRMCs. Most activities are implemented through the District Extension work-ers, with support from the Programme. In the case of the Value addition in agri-cultural value chains, the NGO Emanuel International has been contracted to support the process as part of their ongoing value-chain work in the Wellness and Agriculture for Life Advancement (WALA) programme.

Conservation agriculture (CA) is considered Climate Smart Agriculture be-cause it is better adapted to erratic rainfall than the traditional agriculture in the Basin (the increased organic matter content in the soil resulting from this practice helps to retain moisture, and mulching reduces evaporation – and increases soil fertility). At the same time, the increased carbon storage in the soil supports cli-mate change mitigation. The Programme has also introduced CA with the simple reason that it needs less labour, it gives higher yields and it is on long term more sustainable. In all the hotspots this practice is introduced through the District’s Agriculture Development Office (DADO). The table presents figures for six Ex-tension Planning Areas (EPAs) where CA is introduced, showing number of par-ticipating farmers and the yields after introduction of CA compared with tradi-


tional yields. In the last column the differences have been shown. These differ-ences between the two systems are quite large but also rather irregular. It must be stressed that at least part of the differences is because fertilizers and hybrid maize seeds were given – and herbicides were used during the first season (fer-tilizer is, however, also applied in traditional systems). Agriculture extension of-ficers who carry out the daily monitoring of this new practice indicate that CA gives higher yields (1st year + 20%, 2nd year 40-50% and 3rd year + 60%). Advant-ages/practices in general heard were: minimal soil disturbances, mulching, crop mixing, rotation, compost and long-term no use of fertilizers.

EPA No. of farmers Average yield EPA LCBCCA CA MT/ha1

Traditional yields EPA MT/ha2

Differences

1. Ngwelero2. Nany-

umbo3. Domasi4. Kasongo5. Malosa6. Nsanama

92763993020

1.3302.8834.8252.3544.3003.988

1.1271.3161.6931.4912.0931.224

18%119%184% 58%105%126%

Totals 266 1.3–6.3 MT/ha 1.1–2.1 MT/ha 18-184%Yields from Programme supported CA plots in six EPAs. The data were obtained by the LCBCCAP agriculture officer and the table was made jointly with her.

The number of farmers participating is not large. In two Districts we made rough calculations of farmers applying CA and percentages were only 1 - 2% in the Phalombe District and 13% in the Machinga District. The calculation is based on figures given by the DADO’s extension officers during field visits. However, ex-amples were seen were farmers on their own or with minimum support from the Programme adopt CA, showing that it is perceived as a beneficial farming sys-tem by the farmers.

A major concern, also expressed in the 2013 review, is the use of herbicides in CA, especially during the first year of farming. The Programme has not pur-chased herbicides this year, but does not have a policy of not using them – or of only using herbicides which are permitted in Europe (Bullet has been used, a product which is banned in Europe due to its toxicity). Interviews during our fieldtrips suggest that in general neither extension workers nor farmers are suffi-ciently trained and equipped to use herbicides in a safe manner. Also, the gen-eral use of expensive inputs such as hybrid Maize and fertilizer is a concern – both in terms of dependence and costs (however, if well applied, CA may require less fertilizer in the long run than traditional farming). Obvious research ques-tions for the Programme involves looking into how low-input CA can best be practiced, preferably without herbicides. Close monitoring of all aspects are im-portant.

The Programme has supported improved fish processing in order to reduce post-harvest losses, and increase quality and income. Support has been given to three Women Fish Processing Clubs and includes training, value chain studies,

1 2012/2013 growing season project sites LCBCCAP CA.

2 2012/2013 growing season general EPA


and technical and financial support for three fish processing facilities including solar dryers, sorting / packing facilities and improved smoking kilns (requiring less firewood than traditional smoking practices and providing better quality). Also, as a result of the support, Mobil banking is now available on a weekly basis, and both the individual members and the groups as such have bank ac-counts. Work is been done in coordination between WFC and District Fisheries Office and their Extension Service. Initial investments in infrastructure are high, but the facilities work well (when there are fish in the lake) and there is no doubt that it has reduced losses and improved quality of the products (though data to document this is missing). The facilities have been handed over to the Women Clubs, though they are not formally registered in any way. No documentation regarding ownership has been made. Next step, starting in April 2014, is a pro-cess towards certification through the National Bureau of Certification, - this would allow the Women groups to sell their products through supermarkets through-out the country.

Figure 5 shows fish smoking kiln; fish in the smoking kiln; and fish drying houses (Malun-guni Women fish processing group).

In one case a solar dryer has now been constructed without support from the Programme, suggesting that the system may spread to other landing sites. It may be expected that activity on sites without infrastructure may decline, since fishermen may choose to deliver to landing sites with facilities in order to obtain higher prices. The impact of this should be assessed.

As part of the support to the Fishery sector, Beach Village Committees have also been supported, - they act as local authority, e.g. enforcing fishing closing seasons and the right mesh size in fishing gear

Value addition has also been supported in the agricultural sector, through a partnership with the NGO Emmanuel International in Machinga District. Pro-gramme support has involved support to value chain studies and training in value addition in value chains with chillies, rice, pigeon peas, ground nuts, and maize (including improved seeds, better grading, bulk marketing), resulting in increased prices for the products. Value chain studies has also be supported in charcoal, firewood and bamboo-basket weaving.

The project stimulates poultry and pig breeding at small scale. These activities are technically introduced and monitored by the livestock extension workers. Groups of farmers receive training, and receive animals for free, - however on the condition that the first offspring is passed on to other farmers to increase coverage (type of revolving fund). Though this practise has often failed, the case visited was functioning at this point. However, the system may easy collapse, e.g. dye to one of frequent outbreak of poultry or pig diseases. Again, close mon-itoring is needed to see if this activity is indeed sustainable over time. It is sup-


posed that these activities – mainly implemented by women – improve incomes of families and will contribute to the food and nutrition security of household. Experiences from other countries and other projects in Malawi, however, show that these income generating activities only have impact on the food and nutrition security situation of households if specific so called “knowledge, attitude and practice” training for caretakers i.e. mothers is introduced.

Overall, the interventions are quite traditional (with some innovations in the Fish-ery sector), and need close monitoring and possibly further development. They do, however, appear to support the output, i.e. improving household and enter-prise adaptive capacity and resilience. Apart from the direct beneficiaries, it also builds capacity in the District system to spread such initiatives further. For now, the scale of the interventions is, however, rather limited.

3.7.4 Output 4: Carbon sequestration throughout the Basin increased

The Programme has participated in policy debates and strategy development, including on REDD+ and a number of other climate change and environment related topics. It could further strengthen its position to do so, if programme im-pacts were better analysed and documented, enabling experiences to feed into the debate.

Through the capacity building of VNRMCs (34 committees established with support from the programme), tree planting has been promoted along riversides (flood-protection and compliance with 10 m buffer zones required by law), in woodlots, and in fields (as an element of Conservation Agriculture). Fruit trees have been planted both in those associations and around houses. In general in the visited areas there was a high demand for more trees, and especially more fruit trees. Established VNRMCs have byelaws, signed by the District Commis-sioner, protecting the trees. Examples were provided during the trips, showing that the committees have started to enforce the protection of trees, through fines.Survival rates for trees are generally high according to the M&E data, - partly due to the bonus paid to the committees for surviving plants (placed in the village bank/fund), but also due to a genuine interest in increasing tree cover. The tree planting activities through the VNRMC´s appear to be an appropriate way of promoting tree-planting and ensure that they are protected and used in a sus-tainable way, and though impact studies are missing, this approach should be up-scaled. The work has been coordinated by FRIM and implemented with to-gether with the District Forestry office and the forestry extension workers.

The work with NRM through the committees is fully within government policies on decentralized management of NRM.

Selection of species for planting has been done with the support from FRIM. Species include well-known agroforestry species, fruit trees, fast growing species for firewood and timber and includes both indigenous and exotic species. Spe-cies selection process seems thoroughly done and well justified.

The Zomba Mountain test plantation (15 ha, 20.000 trees) established and managed by FRIM with seven indigenous species in a plantation system has multiple purposes: research, demonstration of the potential of indigenous spe-


cies, gene bank, catchment protection, cooperation with community in non-con-flictive reclamation of encroached gov. forest (they continue to cultivate between the trees and protect the trees – later they benefit from NTFPs and dead branches). The FRIM test plantation serves a number of purposes which are very relevant for the Programme, and fully justify the plantation. However, con-sidering the emphasis the Programme has on CA, it is surprise that traditional agriculture rather than CA is practised in the plantation.

The Chirunga forest reserve (Chancellor College) likewise serves several of those purposes, and the location close to the university provide easy access to staff/students who may undertake studies there. Like in the Zomba Mountain case, it should be considered if CA, rather than traditional agriculture, should be promoted here as well.

Apart from carbon stock increase above and below ground, activities have been undertaken to reduce emissions, through distribution (and now local produc-tion) of improved, mobile cook stoves (now being produced locally in some com-munities), improved kilns for smoking fish, and work on the Zomba plateau to reduce forest fires. Briquette production using leaves and waste paper is done on a small scale at the Technologies Learning Centre.

The M&E system provides data on number of trees planted, ha reforested, and survival rates. According to the monitoring framework, targets have been achieved on those indicators

However, monitoring of carbon stock increases and change in forest coverage in the Basin have not been monitored, so it cannot be assessed whether those impact indicators have been achieved. This means that impact in relation to this indicator cannot be assessed.

4 REVIEW CRITERIAThis section summarizes important aspects of the programme in relation to the review criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability.

4.1 Relevance The programme activities are well aligned with Malawi Policies,

strategies and programmes, including the NAPA and the decentralization policy.

Most activities have a potential for replication / upscaling, in some cases with limited external support. However, a detailed impact analysis look-ing into the best practices should be made before doing so.

Also, most activities are made through the District system and this means that in principle the system to support continued action is in place.

The programme activities in general address important NRM and liveli-hood issues in the Basin, and provide relevant responses to a number of the existing challenges. However, again, a detailed assessment of impact has not yet been done by the programme because the M&E system has not been applied as planned.


No House Hold approach (intra household food security, nutrition, growth, improved feeding habits ) has been adapted while “health famil-ies” in “healthy environments” is the final aim.

4.2 Effectiveness The monitoring system provides data on Input/results, and in general

terms the Programme has met the targets set in the M&E Framework (see Annex 8). The impact has not been monitored and documented, but the review team consider that the programme has contributed to food security trough diversification and strengthening of income generating activities, improved productivity through Conservation Agriculture, intro-duction of fruit trees in tree planting and support to Village banks (e.g. performance based payment for survival of planted trees).

Implementation through district or other government structures is gener-ally not considered very efficient and therefore direct implementation through an NGO is often preferred. However, long term sustainability aspects justify the approach and may provide more value for money in the long run in spite of the obvious deficiencies in the system. Also, the process contributes strongly to the cross basin coordination, which is one of the programme objectives. These aspects are fundamental to the Programme, and by using this approach, the Programme helps to build an important framework for all the more narrowly focussed interventions done by other programmes. Also, it enables scaling-up without neces-sarily hiring a large additional staff in the Programme, since most of the work will be carried out through the districts, and District authorities have expressed that with funding for transport, materials, lunch allowances, they will be able to participate in such an up-scaling.

The geographically dispersed interventions in the Hotspots have given Programme staff logistical challenges, and may have reduced efficiency and effectiveness in the daily operations of support and monitoring. Be-nefits, however, of the approach include strengthening cross-basin dia-logue and interaction, paving the way for a basin-wide ecosystem-based management.

Also, the focus on the hotspots located throughout the Basin in different environments and with different challenges can provide important les-sons learned from different areas, and become centres from where inter-ventions can spread. This, however, requires that the experiences and lessons learned are documented and put to use (and this is still a week point). If not the approach is wasting time and resources, compared to a more geographically focussed intervention area.

4.3 Efficiency Though initial costs were high, there are very good value for money in

the Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio, where a very low-cost production of LCBCCAP-relevant radio programmes is produced by Ra-dio-listeners Clubs throughout the Basin.

Working (partly) with / through the government system (Districts, FRIM) means that Programme costs are reduced since salaries for public em-ployees are financed through the government.


Slow procurement processes trough the University of Malawi have caused delay in many activities

Absence of a special account in FRIM for project funds caused signific-ant delays in a number of FRIM activities

The plans for a new Project, HEAL, merging three existing programmes including LCBCCAP put a number of activities on stand-by for some time partly due to the expected restructuring, partly due to reduced bridging-funding for a period.

Delay in transmission of funds from the Programme to Districts has delayed activities in the Districts

The recent registration of LEAD as an independent entity enabling it to do its own procurement (if approved by the RNE) may increase effi-ciency of procurement processes.

Coordination among project partners has improved significantly over the years, but the absence of clear project operational manual (still not made) governing the cooperation between partners has caused friction between partners and also delay in implementation of some activities, affecting the efficiency of the work.

4.4 Impact Monitoring of impact indicators has not been done, thus data is lacking

to describe the impact of Programme interventions. Based on the observations and interviews during the mission, the Re-

view Team finds that the project has caused an improvement of women and communities participation in CC adaptation, which is visible and mentioned in many places, though a Household Approach and gender transformation are missing and that affects livelihood improvements negatively.

Stakeholders consulted are well aware of the Programme, consider it good – but want more resources. It is often perceived as the LEAD-Pro-gramme (in some cases as a WFC Programme)

Ideas of an overall, permanent structure to ensure basin-wide manage-ment through the formation of a trust or other entity has been mentioned.

4.5 Sustainability The implementation strategy, which is based on working through the

Districts and other local institutions means that the expertise and the structures directly responsible for the interventions stay in the Basin after the Programme comes to an end. This is important for sustainability, and even if the intensity of interventions will decline when the pro-grammes ends, many are likely to continue to develop. The use of Lead farmers in the promotion and spread of Conservation Agriculture may significantly increase sustainability of this activity.

Registered VCNRMCs have been through a capacity development pro-cess and have a constitution approved by the District commissioner and remain in the area as a village level authority promoting sustainable NRM management.

Interventions are generally aligned with national and district polices and strategies, which means that focus is maintained after the Programme stops.


The type of interventions promoted through the Programme increases sustainability of natural resources management in the Basin. However, the application of herbicides, including Round-up and Bullet, in Conser-vation Agriculture causes concern for both human and environmental health. Also, the strong promotion of hybrid maize in CA may impact long term sustainability through loss of local varieties and dependency on commercial seeds.

Presently the documentation and analysis of impacts and lessons learned are too week, which affect sustainability negatively, since it may prevent/limit replication and up-scaling of appropriate technologies and practices.

Sustainability more effective if household approach would be integrated. The support to policy and strategy development through the Programme

means that lesson learned from the programme may become main-streamed in new policies.

Ownership: The close interaction with different local structures has cre-ated a good ownership to the activities throughout the Basin. The radio is a particular strong case because beneficiaries consider it theirs / very relevant for their reality, horizontal transmission.

The programme may over the years help to build a platform for a more permanent basin-wide coordination, e.g. in the form of a trust or similar. Several stakeholders have mentioned this possibility. If it materializes, Programme activities may be managed from such an entity.

Ideas for a basin wide trust to run the radio as one of their activities will increase long term stability of the radio station and will strengthen its role as a Lake Chilwa Basin radio. As the Radio broadcast information is of great importance for Livelihood and sustainable NRM in the Basin, its continued function will help to disseminated Programme learnings.

4.6 Risk ManagementRisks and risk management were not really considered in the original Pro-gramme Document from 2009 (though assumptions – which may turn to risks if not fulfilled, were to some extent evaluated in the document) or in the Inception Report from 2010. The Risk Analysis provided by the programme is dated May 2012.

In general, it is recommendable to prepare a risk analysis as part of programme preparation – and have a continuous monitoring/updating of the risk matrix throughout the life time of the programme/project.

The risk analysis matrix for the project is mentioning 8 risks and indicates risk per its likelihood to happen: low < 30%, medium (31-70%) and high (>70%). It is not mentioned how this percentage can be assessed. According to the Risk Mat-rix, the following classification of identified risks was made:

Risks with high likelihood are: economic meltdown. Risks with medium likelihood are: corruption and fraud, loss and or dam-

age to programme property and political interference within the imple-menting communities.

Risks with low likelihood are: local and national scale political unrest.


In the following overview the actual risks (identified in the LCBCCAP 2012 docu-ment) are assessed and some suggestions for additions are made. Additions are highlighted by using italic.

Economic meltdown: While the likelihood has been classified high, the matrix mentions that scarcity of fuel and forex has been experienced from 2011 to date. The forex item must not be of importance while the funding comes from abroad – Norway – and the scarcity of fuel may have influenced the efficiency of the programme but this was never mentioned by project staff and partners. This means that the likelihood could be medium instead of high and its impact low instead of medium.

Corruption and fraud: The likelihood has been classified as medium and the impact high. At the moment of the review the central government was severely criticized because of the existence of “Cash gate”. There is no evid-ence that the “cash gate” corruption scandal affected the project. On the Programme scale, the mitigation measures against fraud refer to the Finance Management system put in place, including use of the Chancellor College Procurement system, and the system has so far proved to be robust.

o However, since the Financial Management system is now under

change with the new status of LEAD, the mitigation measures must be re-considered. Presently – due to a lack of clear and agreed pro-cedures for Finance Management, and with no internal audit function in place, the risk may be classified in the high range of medium – and the impact as high.

Loss and/or damage to programme property: the likelihood has been classified as medium and its impact medium as well. The only loss that has been reported is the loss of a vehicle through a road accident. This has not affected the programme activities in a direct way.

o The lack of clear ownership to the Fish Processing Infrastructure

should be assessed as well, and mitigation measures defined (Own-ership should always be clearly documented, transfer should be documented and should only happen when a registered entity rather than an informal group receives it). Unless mitigated, the risk may increase to high.

o Lightning caused damage to part of the installations of the Radio

ChancoChanco Community Radio. Such incidents may close down the station for periods, and also have economic impacts.

Political interference within the implementing communities: both likeli-hood and impact have been qualified as medium but the programme has been rather unaffected by this risk. The risk that radio ChancoChanco Com-munity Radio will be “colonized” by politicians or by rich entrepreneurs is still existing, but the consciousness of this risk is high. The choice of new board members of the radio has also taken this threat into account. The matrix mentions under mitigation that increased awareness through various media


include the Radio Listening Clubs. The members of the review team confirm this.

o However, as the radio needs to renew its license annually, there is

always a risk that authorities choose not to do so, causing disruption of broadcasting. This risk should be assessed and continuously monitored.

Local and national scale political unrest: the likelihood has been classi-fied low and the impact medium and this is confirmed by the review team.

Major changes and disruption in partner institutions: both likelihood and impact have been assessed as low and that still holds.

o In case the Extension services are partly or completely privatized as

has been discussed (according to programme staff), the Programme would need to adjust the implementation approach to the new situ-ation. It would mean, among other things, that cost of implementa-tion would increase significantly, since Programme would need to assume the expenses presently paid by the government.

Natural hazards: likelihood was assessed low and impact as medium. The matrix mentions that Lake Chilwa is prone to extreme weather events – floods and droughts – but mentions also that the goal of this programme is to build up the resilience to it by the communities but also through the protec-tion of the ecosystem.

Personal safety: In the matrix this only refers to the danger that field staff is exposed to when working in the forest (falls and snakebites) which is cor-rectly assessed, however, other risks should be considered as well:

o Road safety (both with respect to Programme staff and people on

the road) is an important issue, and the risk may be mitigated through clear guidelines for the use of cars (safety belts, headlights on, maximum number of people in the car, restrictions on driving at night, maintenance, speed etc.).

o Safety of people handling / using dangerous chemicals (herbicides)

should be assessed and mitigated (stop using banned herbicides, reduce use as much as possible, ensure adequate training and equipment, adequate disposal of empty containers etc.).

Environmental health/safety: Again, the risk in relation to the use of agri-cultural chemicals – both herbicides and fertilizers should be constantly eval-uated (the team was informed that algae growth in the lake is increasing, possibly an indication of increased eutrophication as a consequence of in-tensive use of fertilizers which are washed into streams and eventually reach the lake).

Press coverage: An aspect not mentioned is the risk of bad press in Nor-way – the country that provides the funding. If the Norwegian press captures


the information that a programme finances through Norwegian tax-payers use the funds to buy herbicides that are banned in Europe it may have im-mediate consequences for the funding. This is not mitigated by reducing transparency – but by not using such chemicals.

Institutional structures: The new status of LEAD as an independent entity means that some of the safeguards provided by the close links to Chancellor College will disappear, - especially in relation to financial management. Mit-igation measures are mentioned in the institutional assessment, and in-cludes a process of institutional strengthening, as well as a period with in-creased support / control from auditors. Also, the new Finance management approach should be revised by the RNE and the Deloitte Audit company.

5 LESSON LEARNEDFunding is important, but so is time. In the interventions supported by the Pro-gramme, long-time presence is needed on all levels – at the Districts to fully in-tegrate the relevant elements in their planning, in the communities to – in their own pace – formulate and develop their approach to management of their re-sources. Strong incentives (farming inputs, free seedlings etc.) can speed up processes, but long term sustainability depends on all levels taking the next step because they are convinced it is the right thing to do – not because they are driven to do so by incentives. It takes time before impact is visible and measur-able. This suggests programmes of this nature should last at least 10-15 years.

Direct economic incentives for government staff to participate in the Programme are limited to lunch-allowances. However, the possibility of increased training and participation in other events, as well as having access to resources to imple-ment actions in the field, have increased interest of both extension workers and staff at FRIM and in the District offices. Also, the close alignment with national policies, means that in general the management level (Forestry Department, FRIM, Districts Commissioners and Officers) commits to Programme activities. Overall, the Programme shows that with some limitations the approach is work-able, and helps to sustain experiences and best practices. The Programme’s task is mainly funding, technical assistance, facilitation and training, whereas most practical work in the field is done by the Districts officers and extension workers.

Efficient communication is very important for a Programme covering such a wide geographical area and such a diverse range of stakeholders. The Radio Chan-coChanco Community Radio has so far proved to be a very important tool for cross-basin communication, coordination and learning. The approach with Radio Listeners Clubs making local, context relevant programmes has made the radio highly appreciated in the communities, and giving them a strong voice and clear feeling of ownership to the radio and the programmes broadcasted form it. In the view of the review team, this impact is partly due to the local character of the radio, - a national radio may not be able to have the same impact.

The programme set-up, with strong involvement of Districts Planning Directors participating in the PMC and District Commissioners and representatives at PS level from relevant ministries in the PSC has enable the Programme to feed dir-


ectly into policy making. It also ensures alignment with existing and emerging national policies and priorities, and the PSC may help to formulate relevant re-search questions to the Programme, further strengthening the linkage.

6 CONCLUSIONSThe Programme addresses important and relevant NRM and livelihood issues in the Basin, and managed to do it in a basin-wide framework, involving District and local authorities and committees.

It is well aligned to national policies and work through permanent, local/district institutions, favouring long term sustainability.

The ecosystem-based, basin-wide, cross-sectoral and cross-institutional ap-proach is complementary to the more narrowly focussed interventions of many other projects and programmes, and helps to build local capacity as well as the overall planning and implementation framework for such interventions. This may become the platform for a future Lake Chilwa trust, authority or similar.

It is a complex programme with many stakeholders and many levels of interven-tion in a large area. Considering the complexity, the progress of the Programme is good, but this kind of interventions should be long term, - at least 10, prefer-ably 15 years.

In general terms, the Programme, with some delays and some limitations, is achieving the results foreseen in the Logical Framework and the O&M Frame-work. However, the impact of the Programme is not monitored as foreseen in the O&M framework. The Programme coverage in terms of number of direct beneficiaries is low, and has so far mainly the character of providing demonstration of technologies and approaches, but the Programme has created a solid foundation and may be scaled up in a second phase. Up-scaling in relation to specific field-based activit-ies (e.g. CA) may however, also be done through support to other organisations.

The Programme´s strong platform for research and studies through linkages with research institutions and qualified in-house staff has not been fully exploited so far.

A number of external and internal challenges has reduced efficiency in Pro-gramme management and implementation during the first 3-4 years of the pro-gramme. However, most of those have been appropriately addressed, providing a better platform for a more efficient programme management system.

The set-up of the Programme, including links to the Policy level through the Pro-gramme Steering Committee has enabled the Programme to contribute to the policy debate.

Regarding LEAD


LEAD is a small organisation and is financially very dependent on LCBCCAP. However, over the years it has shown that it is able to maintain itself and to work with funding from varying sources. The small organisation is able to act in a flexible manner and rapidly adjust if conditions are changing.

LEAD has a strong national and international network, and is able to play a key role in both project implementation, training, and policy / strategy development.LEAD has generally been able to produce the outputs expected from the organisation and to report on those (financially and technically) in a timely manner.

LEAD, will be able to head the implementation of a second phase of the LCBCCAP, but an institutional strengthening process should be undertaken during the remainder of 2014.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Recommendation to the ProgrammeProgramme management:

The partners should develop a Programme operational manual describ-ing the PM and coordination structure, the obligations of each of the partners, conditions for transfer of funds and other aspects of relevance for a well-functioning cooperation.

Minutes from different levels of management meetings should be pro-duced and shared among relevant staff.

The Risk Management Matrix should be updated and continuously mon-itored at PMC and PSC level.

Lesson learned in relation to cooperation between the three consortium members – and among the consortium and other stakeholders should be collected and analysed in preparation for a potential, second phase. Discussions should be taken at various levels, including PMC and PSC.

Should the RNE decide not to fund a second phase of the Programme, and no other Donor funds are accessible, an exit strategy should be prepared as soon as possible. I that case

focus for the remaining part of the programme should be to ensure that District and other entities are strengthened as much as possible to con-tinue activities without support from the Programme.

Research, Studies and M&E Research, monitoring and evaluation should be coordinated by one

strong unit and have qualified and experienced staff that also intends to integrate university departments.

The Programme should develop a structured research agenda, outlining important research questions defined by the partners and with direct relevance to the situation in the Basin and the Programme Activities.

The Programme website should be updated, and the planned linkage to the M&E system, proving transparency in Programme activities and achievements, should be established. A simple system, with linkage to


Google Earth, where anyone can click on a hotspot / village and learn what activities take place should also be considered.

The Programme should not depend on outside support for daily mainten-ance of the website, but ensure the capacity exists in-house.

The programme needs a review system to quality check studies before they are published (both technical and editorial checks).

All studies produced by the Programme should be available on the Pro-gramme Website and distribution in general improved.

The copying (electronically or otherwise) of publications funded through the RNE should not be restricted (rather a text could be included in the datasheet of the publication indicating that all non-commercial copying and distribution of this publications is permitted, indicating the source).

Impact indicators in the M&E system should be monitored. The pro-cesses should start with design of an robust methodology resulting in a data collection system that is representative. Good, technically feasible, and objectively verifiable indicators must be developed and proper baseline(s) be made.

The programme activities and logistic provide excellent opportunities for students – access to fieldwork, many relevant issues to study, excursion sites. These opportunities should be used more intensively. It may be consider to have a Small Grant Facility to support students doing smaller projects as part of their studies. Also, funding for more intern-positions may be considered.

Technologies Learning Centre should be used much more intensively by university, communities and general public. More technologies should be on display – and tested by the participating communities.

Programme Implementation Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio: The radio is best maintained

as a regional Chilwa Basin Radio (rather than turning it into a national radio station), providing strong ownership and an excellent tool for basin-wide dialogue and coordination. A name referring to the Basin would have been more appropriate.

After the first year of functioning, a radio listeners survey should be made (quality, programme choice etc.).

Fora for cross-sectoral and cross-district exchange of experiences (dis-trict officers, extension workers) should be held annually.

Training needs assessment should be made to establish needs for addi-tional training for involve d district officers and extension workers.

Involvement of agriculture, livestock, forestry, environment and NRM Districts extension workers is necessary, but also the health, education and gender departments in order to guarantee balanced gender and intra-household food and nutrition security situations.

Infrastructure: When infrastructure such as the solar dryers and smoking kilns for fish production is provided, make sure that ownership is always clear and documented.

Impact on fish landing-sites without processing infrastructure may de-cline as prices are likely to be higher on the improved sites. This should be analysed.


Test plantations at FRIM (Zomba Mountain) and Chancellor College (Chirunga Forest Reserve): consider to the feasibility of applying apply Conservation Agriculture rather than traditional agriculture when making agreements with local communities regarding agriculture in the plots.

To strengthen the gender approach, at thorough assessment of the role of men and women must be made (should have been made at the begin-ning of the Programme), with the aim of providing clear directions for how to make households more resilient. The use of the Household Eco-nomy Approach is a good option.

Overall the Programme aims to reduce vulnerability and increase food-security among the population in the Basin. Targeted support to basin-wide Disaster Risk Management planning may be considered in a second phase.

The Programme adequately addresses flash-flood risks through replant-ing activities in the upper parts of the watersheds. However, it should be assessed if other measures are required in the upper watersheds, to complement tree planting (e.g. check-dams, infiltration ditches or other watershed management practices)

Conservation agriculture: Carefully revise the process, minimize or stop using herbicides (immediate stop to use herbicides banned in Europe such as Bullet); ensure that if herbicides are used, extension workers and farmers are well trained and equipped to do so. Consider if hybrid maize is the right input, considering the dependency on buying seeds that it causes. Ensure robust monitoring and conduct impact studies. Develop a clear policy on herbicide use.

In a second phase, Programme capacity (in terms of scale) to imple-ment activities in the field may be increased. This may be done by hiring 1-3 well qualified field oriented staff, including at least one with a strong social-science profile who can up-scale the work in cooperation with the district officers and extension workers. It may also be considered to make a partnerships with a strong NGOs, but care should be given to maintain the overall programme approach (including the close coordina-tion with the Districts and the Extension system).

During the next phase, discussions on how future basin-wide coordina-tion should be organized may be facilitated by the Programme, and by the end of the second phase – or from the beginning of a third phase, a permanent structure may be in place to take over Programme manage-ment.

7.2 Recommendations to LEAD LEAD should immediately take contact to the RNE in order to agree on

future financial management procedures considering the change in status of LEAD.

LEAD is in a transition process and a plan for further institutional devel-opment of the organisation should be made as soon as possible. Import-ant milestones in the plan may include: Finance management manual approved by Board; Internal audits system in place; operating mechan-isms for the application of the finance manual in place; LEAD draft Strategy 2011-2015 revised and approved by Board; Staff performance evaluation system in place (including updated work-descriptions); Web-



FRIM and CA are different activities!

site updated regularly; Business Integrity statement developed, ap-proved by the Board and discussed with staff. It should be considered to contract a short term external consultant to support this process (may be hired using existing funds available in LCBCCAP). It is recommended that the process starts as soon as possible in order to prepare LEAD for a second phase of LCBCCAP in case the RNE decides to support a second phase.

LEAD should work with one Finance Manual only, which ensures compli-ance with relevant requirements (including those of National legislation, RNE procedures, and – depending on the content of future MoU – those of Chancellor College). Operating mechanisms for the application of the Finance Manual should be prepared.

Since the Chancellor University College no longer performs internal audits for LEAD, this role should be taken over by another entity to be identified as soon as possible.

Deloitte/RNE should review the draft Finance Manual in order to assess whether it complies with RNE requirements. This should be done as soon as possible in order for LEAD to include suggestions for changes / improvements before the final improvement of the manual by the LEAD Board (Scheduled for May 2014).

During the first year of operation as an independent entity, quarterly or bi-annual assessment of the finance management and reporting should be undertaken by Deloitte to ensure that – if needed – adjustments are made immediately. The process should be undertaken together with the internal audit (to be identified) and the staff of the Finance and Adminis-tration unit.

7.3 Recommendations to the RNERNE, in cooperation with Deloitte, should meet with LEAD to agree on financial management procedures considering the change in status of LEAD.

Programme should be continued in a phase 2. A programme of this character needs to be supported for at least 10, preferably 15 years.


8 ANNEXES


8.1 Annex 1. Terms of Reference

Mid Term Review for

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Adaptation Project

Date: 13.02.2014

Norwegian Support Code: MWI-2611-08/024

1.0 Background

1.1 Brief description of the programme

Malawi approved the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for cli-

mate change in 2008. However, despite NAPA being in place for the past five

years, there is still no general climate change response programme with clear

guidelines on the implementation of adaptation and mitigating measures. In addi-

tion, there is no sentinel site in Malawi where climate change research and im-

plementation of adaptations are undertaken. Thus the Lake Chilwa Basin Cli-

mate Change project was designed to provide a good environment to test imple-

mentation of the NAPA.

Exactly how climate change will affect Lake Chilwa Basin is subject to debate,

but what is generally accepted is that temperature in the Lake Chilwa Basin are

projected to increase by 2.6 – 4.7 degrees Celsius. Lake Chilwa has dried up in

the past, most recently in 1995-96. It is predicted that these events will become

more common with increased temperatures. What is certain is that the liveli-

hoods of most residents of the Lake Chilwa Basin are already precarious and

changes in climate will only increase the negative impacts on agriculture and

natural resources. In recognition of this the Lake Chilwa Project was developed

in order to secure the livelihoods of 1.5 million people in the Lake Chilwa Basin

and enhance resilience of the natural resource base. The programme is achiev-

ing this goal by:

strengthening local and district institutions to better manage natural resources

and build resilience to climate change;

facilitating and help build cross-basin and cross-sector natural resource manage-

ment and planning for climate change throughout the Basin;

improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity through technical and

material support of practical adaptation projects and activities in Basin hotspots;

mitigating the effects of climate change through improved forest management;

and governance.


This is joint project by the Leadership for Environment and Development South-

ern & Eastern Africa (LEAD SEA) based at Chancellor College, WorldFish

Centre (WFC) and Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM). The Pro-

gramme is being implemented in ten selected hotspots in the Lake Chilwa Basin

comprising villages from the three districts of Machinga, Phalombe and Zomba.

The primary beneficiaries of the Programme are local communities within the

hotspots. In addition, local and district institutions dealing in environment and

natural resources management also benefit from capacity building initiatives

provided by the programme. The Programme also supports partner institutions

with resources to enhance their capacity to deliver essential services to the com-

munities.

2. Purpose of the Review

The purpose of this review is to assess whether the project delivers what it has

promised, its achievements of goal, objectives and expected outputs. Addition-

ally, the review shall also undertake an institutional analysis of LEAD especially

focusing on its ability to drive and manage poverty reduction and livelihoods in-

terventions within the basin. Furthermore, the review shall assess:

The relevance of the project to the national climate change programmes;

its actual integration with the programmes at local and national levels

and its potential to demonstrate the value of community involvement in

climate change projects;

Assess the positive and negative effects produced by the program dir-

ectly or indirectly intended or unintended;

Asses whether LEAD will succeed in achieving the projects goals;

Assess the project’s contribution to research on climate change and food

security.

Assess if economic resources/inputs have been efficiently utilized for

reached outputs.

Provide recommendation, lessons learned and an in-depth independent

assessment of performance of the programme to inform Norway's de-

cision making regarding future support to the Lake Chilwa Basin Climate

Adaptation Programme.

3. Scope of work

The review shall assess the overall performance, efficiency, capacity and the

institutional arrangements put in place for planning, management and implement-

ation of the programme, especially focusing on:


The success in strengthening Local and District Institutions: The Lake Chilwa Basin Project planned to work closely with structures set up through the de-centralisation process to strengthen their ability to carry out natural resource management planning and governance and increase their understanding of and adaptation to climate change.

o Which local and district institutions are they working with? How do they work with the local and district institutions? Is there a baseline to measure effectiveness?

The success in facilitating Cross-Basin and Cross-Sector Natural Resources Management: In addition to strengthening and supporting the decentralization process within the districts, there is also a need for greater coordination and planning of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies across the districts and sectors in the Basin. In this regard the project planned to establish collaborative links with specific institutions.

o Have the collaborative links led to greater coordination?

The success in improving household and enterprise adaptive capacity and resilience through diversifying livelihoods and reducing vulnerability.

o How is this measured? Does the project provide a baseline?

The success in climate change mitigation through improved forest manage-ment and governance. Forest resources play a central role in mitigating the impacts of climate change. In line with current forestry initiatives the project planned to pilot the use of global instruments such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Plan Vivo and the implement-ation of the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and Pay-ment for Ecosystem Services such as water and biodiversity.

o Is there a Baseline for one to measure the success rate?

Assess institutional arrangement for the project and also undertake an institu-tional analysis of LEAD-SA with focus on:

o Identification and design of institutional mechanisms and process that support programme implementation through a detailed knowledge of the existing roles, responsibilities, capacities and incentives within LEAD-SA,

o Identification of institutional factors that enhance or hinder project sustainability and success,

o Legal status of LEAD-SA including its status in Malawi and its rela-tionship with the University of Malawi and LEAD HQ.

o Analyse the policy making and coordination process within and among participating institutions.

4. Review Criteria

The assessment of the project may include the following criteria and questions:

Relevance - assess the extent to which the project interventions conform to the

existing policies, strategies and programmes of Malawi.

Are the project interventions consistent with food security and climate change strategies, policies and programmes?


Are the project interventions well in tune with the development policies, like the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy?

Do the project innovations and interventions have potential for replica-tion?

Effectiveness - Using the established set of indicators the review team shall assess

the extent to which the programme has achieved its goals and objectives.

Assess to what extent the programme has contributed to improved food security and capacity in its areas,

To what extent are the identified outcomes results of the programme rather than external factors?

Was the established monitoring and evaluation system effective in direct-ing implementation of the programme components?

What could be done to make the programme more effective?

Efficiency - The review team shall provide an assessment of the efficiency of

output delivery, including assessment of expenditures in relation to activities

carried out.

Has the programme been managed with reasonable regard for efficiency?

What measures have been taken during the planning and implementation phase to ensure that resources are efficiently used?

To what extent have the programme activities delivered as agreed?

Impact - The review team shall assess the different types of effects of the pro-

gramme, positive and negative, intended and unintended.

Has the programme motivated or improved community and women’s participation in climate adaptation?

What do the beneficiaries and other stakeholders perceive to be the ef-fects of the programme?

Sustainability - The team shall assess the effectiveness of sustainability measures

established during the programme implementation.

To what extent have measures been taken to address the sustainability of the programme activities?

Is there local ownership of the activities at all levels, institutional and local?

Assessment of risks management - Effective implementation shall depend on how

well the project manages risks and how well programme sustainability was integ-

rated into the design. In this regard, the review shall revise the proposed sustain-

ability and risk elements especially those associated with the following; Policy

and framework conditions (incl. corruption), Socio-cultural and gender (incl.

HIV/AIDS), Economic and financial, Institutional and organisational, and the

Environment.

Other issues – The project was evaluated together with the Malawi Lake Basin

Programme and TLC’s programme on Management Adaptations for climate

Change. The evaluation observed serious implementation and coordination prob-


lems. Considering the seriousness of the review team shall, based on the findings

of the evaluation, clarify issues raised in the evaluation.

5. Implementation of the review

The review will be undertaken by a team comprising two consultants both to be recruited

by Norad. In order to undertake the assignment the team shall require one or more of the

following qualifications: environmental and natural resources management and know-

ledge of climate adaptations, rural development and agriculture. Practical experience of

the agricultural situation in Malawi will be an added advantage.

Sources of information and methodology to be employed

The consultant will review background information available at the project implementing

unit in Zomba and Norwegian Embassy, Lilongwe and other relevant institutions. Back-

ground information available includes web-site (www.lakechilwaproject.mw), Pro-

gramme Documents, Minutes of Annual Meetings and Annual Progress Reports.

ORGUT: Final External End of Programme Review

Timetable for preparation, field work and finalisation of report

The review will be undertaken during the month of February/March 2014. The review

shall be conducted within a period of 24 days; approximately five days planning and

preparations, approx.. 10 days field work, and approx.five days report writing, including

revisions.

6. Reporting

The Team shall submit a first draft of the report not later than one week after completion

of the study. Norad, The Embassy in Lilongwe and the programme partners shall provide

comments to the draft report within one week after the recipt of the report. The final

report shall be submitted to Norad within one week after receiving the comments to the

draft report or at the latest three weeks after the submission of the draft report. Addition-

ally the team will be required to write a preliminary report for presentation and discus-

sion with stakeholders.

The report shall be prepared using the following tentative structure:

Executive Summary: Summary of the evaluation (maximum 5 pages), with particular

emphasis on main findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations.

Report: Presentation of the review purpose, questions, methods used to gather required

information and results.

Lessons learned: Discussion of issues that are likely to have potential for wider applica-

tion and use.


http://www.lakechilwaproject.mw/

Recommendations and conclusions: Assessment of the interventions and its results

against given review criteria and proposed questions, including actionable proposals to

the users.


8.2 Annex 2. Mission Programme

Draft Programme for the Mid Term Review (24 March to

2 April 2014)

Review Team: Dr. Henrik Borgtoft Pedersen (Team Leader) and Aart

van der Hiede (from NIRAS, Denmark)

DATE TIME ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND AREAS FOR DISCUSSION

VENUE CONTACT PERSON

Day 1: Monday,24/03/2014

08:30 – 10:00

Courtesy call, briefing on the status of the projects

RNE Meeting Room

Chikuni, Augustine Charles [email protected]

10:30 – 11:00

Courtesy call, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment

EAD3-PS’s Office

Yanira NtupanyamaTel: +265 8 8883 5597Email: [email protected]

11.30 – 12:30

Courtesy call, Director of Forestry

Forestry HQ Offices, Lilongwe

Raphael KabwazaTel: +265 9 9928 2472E-mail: [email protected]

12.30 – 13.30

LUNCH BREAK

14.00 – 15.30

Meeting with a represent-ative of the Development Fund (for an overview of HEAL4 process)

The Develop-ment Fund Offices, Lilongwe

Victor Katchika-JereTel: +265 9 9951 2031E-mail: [email protected]

15.30 -

Travel to Zomba, accom-modation at Annies Lodge

Annies Lodge, Zomba

Tel: +265 8 8852 7741E-mail:

Day 2: Tuesday,25/03/2014

08:30 –10:00

Briefing meeting with LCBCCAP5 Management (LEAD6, FRIM7, WorldFish), scope of the programme, progress to date.

Lead offices, Zomba

Welton PhaliraTel: +265888308074E-mail: [email protected]

Presentation of progress to date.

LEAD Offices Precious MwanzaTel: +265 8 8853 7038E-mail: [email protected]

10:00 – 10:15

TEA BREAK

10:15– 12:00

Visit Chirunga Forest Reserve Via The Technolo-gies Learning Centre

Chancellor College, Zomba

Mathews TsirizeniTel: +265 8 8474 0291E-mail: [email protected]

12:00 -13:00

LUNCH BREAK

13:00 – 15:00

Visit Chanco Community radio

Malemia 12 Mathews TsirizeniTel: +265 8 8474 0291E-mail: [email protected]

15:30 – 17:00

Sourcing of additional information

LEAD Offices Welton PhaliraTel: +265888308074E-mail: [email protected]

Day 3: Wednes-day

08:30 – 09:30

Discussions with Forestry Research Institute of Malawi, visit the soil

FRIM Offices Clement ChilimaTel: +265 9 9927 0170E-mail: [email protected]

3 Environmental Affairs Department

4 Harmonization for Enhanced Livelihoods

5 Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme

6 Leadership for Environment and Development

7 Forestry Research Institute of Malawi


mailto:[email protected]













26/01/2014

science lab.10.00 – 12.00

Visit to Zomba Mountain Test Plantation

Zomba Moun-tain

Mike LikosweTel: +265 9 9985 1175E-mail: [email protected]

12.00 – 13.30

LUNCH BREAK

13.30 – 15.30

Rehabilitation and restora-tion of riverine forests – Naphambo VFA8

Thom Allan Village, Zomba


Day 4: Thursday27/03/2014

08.30 – 09.00

Brief meeting with Zomba District Commissioner (DC) including EDO9 and DPD10 focusing on feedback on collaborative arrange-ments.

DC’s Office – Zomba

Welton PhaliraTel: +265888308074E-mail: [email protected]

09.30 – 10.30

Brief meeting DADO11 including LRCO12 and DALHIDO13

DADO’s Offices – Zomba

Precious MwanzaTel: +265 8 8853 7038E-mail: [email protected]

11.00 – 12.00

Brief meeting with District Forestry Officer (DFO) and District Fisheries Officer

DFO (Forestry), Zomba


LUNCH BREAK13.00 – 15.00

Visit to value addition initiatives (with Emanuel International)

Nsangeni Village, Domasi Cluster, Machinga

Davies LuhangaTel: +265 8 8154 9926E-mail: [email protected]

15.00 -

Travel to Phalombe

Day 5: Friday28/03/2014

08.30 – 09.30

>Brief meeting with Pha-lombe DC including EDO and DPD>Brief meeting with DADO including LRCO, DAHILDO, District Forestry Officer and District Fisheries Officer

DC’s Offices - Phalombe


10.00 – 12.00

Visit to Naminjiwa EPA14 for Conservation Agricul-ture (CA) and piggery

Naminjiwa EPA - Pha-lombe

Sophie MahonyaTel: +265 9 9723 6288E-mail: [email protected]

12.00 – 13.00

LUNCH BREAK

13.00 – 15.00

Conservation Agriculture in Kasongo and Mpinda EPAs (or any of CA on the way to Swang’oma

Kasongo EPA; Mpinda EPA - Phalombe


15.30 –

Visit to Swang’oma and Malunguni Fish Processing

Swang’oma Beach;

Davies LuhangaTel: +265 8 8154 9926

8 Village Forest Area

9 District Environmental Officer

10 Director of Planning and Development

11 District Agriculture Development Officer

12 Land Resources Conservation Officer

13 District Animal Health and Livestock Development Officer

14 Extension Planning Area













17.00 Sites: >Energy Saving Technolo-gies (Solar fish drying and improved fish smoking kilns) >Fish Value addition >Fisheries Monitoring, Log book data collection system and governance system; >Lake level Monitoring.

Malunguni Beach - Phalombe;

E-mail: [email protected]

Day 6: Saturday29/03/2014

09.00 – 10.30

Meeting with Chitsanzo Radio Listening Club (RLC);

GVH Chimombo- TA Jenala


11.00 – 12.30

Meeting with Mkohiwa/Chitungu VNRMC15 Pha-lombe (Tree planting)

Mkohiwa Village- Phalombe


12.30 – 13.30

LUNCH BREAK

14.00 – 15.30

Travel back to Zomba

16:00 – 17:00

Courtesy call to the Vice Chancellor of UNIMA16 and Principal of Chancellor College (Chanco)

University Office Confer-ence Room

Sosten ChiothaTel: +265 8 8811 4448 +265 9 9114 4448E-mail: [email protected]

Day 7: Sunday30/03/2014

Report writing Review Team

Day 8: Monday31/03/2014Henrik B. Pedersen

07:00 Travel to Kachulu08:00 –09:00

Visit Kachulu women fish processing and Beach Village Committee (BVC)

Kachulu Beach, Zomba

Davies LuhangaTel: +265 8 8154 9926E-mail: [email protected]

09:00 –12:00

Conservation Agriculture in Domasi EPA via Domasi College (Weather Monit-oring)

Domasi EPA, Machinga


12:00 –14:00

Visit Chikala Radio listen-ing club via Mposa weather station

Mposa EPA, Machinga


14:30- 16:00

Travel Back to Zomba

Day 8: Monday31/03/2014Aart van der Heide

08:00-16:00

Meetings with Programme staff

LEAD office Precious Mwanza: Mathews Tsirizeni

Day 9: Tuesday01/04/2014Aart van der Heide

07:00 Travel to Machinga08:00-13:00

Visit to Nambwinda VNRMC Via Machinga DC, DADO and Mikoko River-ine Afforestation

Nambwinda Village, Machinga


13:00-15:00

Travel Back to Zomba

Day 9: Tuesday01/04/201

08:00-16:00

Institutional assessment LEAD office Prof. Sosten Chiota

15 Village Natural Resources Management Committee

16 University of Malawi












4Henrik B. PedersenDay 10: Wednes-day02/04/2014

9:00 – 10:00

Presentation of Web-based M & E System

RNE Confer-ence Room


10:30 TEA BREAK10:30 –12:00

Presentation of prelimin-ary result to LCBCCAP Team

LEAD Offices,Zomba

Review Team

12:00 –18:00

Lunch and Travel Back to Lilongwe

Review Team



8.3 Annex 3. Persons met

Royal Norwegian Embassy

Jan Håkon Olsson Deputy Head of Mission

Augustin Chikuni Programme officer

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Yanira M. Ntupanyama Principal Secretary

The Development Fund of Norway

Knut Andersen Country Director

Victor Katchika Programme manager

LEAD

Welton Phalira Programme Manager LCBCCAP

Sosten Chiotha Programme Coordinator LCBCCAP

Mathews Tsirizeni Programme Officer

Joe Bisika Programme Accountant

Sophie Mahonya Programme Officer

Mercy Kaduya Administrative Assistant

Patrick Mtenje Office Assistant

Deepa Pullanikkatil Programme Officer

Gipson Mphepo Programme Officer

Antonio Nyrenda Accountant assistant

Mr. Mmanga Assistant Accountant

FRIM

Clement Chilima Deputy Director & Forestry Management and Planning

Advisor

Tembo Chanyenga Assistant Director of ForestryMike Likoswe National Tree Centre Manager

Willie Sagsra Cons. Agriculture output leader

Henry Utila Soil Laboratory

Eric Mbingwani Zomba Mountain test plantation

WorldFish Centre

Joseph Nagoli Country Manager

Precious Mwanza M & E Officer, LCBCCAP

Davies Luhanga Research analyst Economics and Business develop-

ment

Daniel Jamu Technical Advisor

University of Malawi

John D. Kalenga Saka Vice-chancellor

Elia Chizimba Assistant Registrar

Wilbert Chitaukali Lecturer, Dep. of Biological Sciences

J. Stanley P. Mllatho Head of Physics Department

Dalitso Kafumbata Department of Biology, Coordinator Technologies

Learning Centre + LEAD


J.S.P. Malatho Head Department of Physics

Wapu Malwafu Environmental History

Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio

Wallstone Sangala Station Manager, seconded from MBC

Students from Dep. of language and

Communication

Interns

Emanuel International

Symon Maseko WALA Deputy Programme Manager

Agribusiness project officer

Zomba District

Charles M. ThombomThombozi District Commissioner

Clifton G. Thyangathyanga District Environment Officer

Willard A. Chirura Director of Planning and Development

McKenley Dupu District Crop Officer

Hamilton NankvaleNankhwere Land Resources Conservation Officer

Abjuti Banda District Animal Health and Livestock Development

Officer

Richard Mtengo District Fisheries Officer

Eric Zangaganga Forestry officer

Ralph Kabwaza Director Forestry

Titus Zulu Assistant Director of forestry

Nixon Massi Fisheries officer (Kachulo fisheries)

Dean Mphalalo Fisheries Assistant

Subiu Maurice Mbuka Agric. Extension worker

Emmanuel MaalekandMalekano Agric. Extension worker

Jean Chiwambo District forestry officer

Getrude Namoto District forestry officer

Mary Ngwira District forestry officer

Selected community representatives in Zomba District

Patrick Kalumpha Member, Kachulu BVC

Sandikonda Kalumpha Member, Kachulu BVC

Ethel Kabwerebwere Chairperson Kachulu Fish Processing Women Club

Keti Kalumpha Secretary, Kachulu Fish Processing Women Club

Phalombe District

Paul Kalilombe District Commissioner

Osmond Chapotoka DADO

Fred Mphalo EDO

Donnex Mtambo District Forestry Office

Isaac Mkandawire Director of Planning and Development

Oscar Kambombe Land Resources Conservation Officer

E.B. Manase Extension Officer, Fisheries

Blessing Tchukambiri Extension officer, Forestry

Stephen Namanja Extension officer

Stefano Tresfore Agric. Extension coordinator

Selected community representatives in Phalombe


Moses Mzingeni Chairperson, Piggery Group/ Naminjiwa EPA

Paul Damiano Secretary, Piggery Group/ Naminjiwa EPA

Doriri Gagala Malunguni Fish Processing Group

Peter Mabruto Chairperson, Chitsanzo RLC

Weston Kaungama Vice chairperson, Chitsanzo

Alinafe Mapira VNMRC Lungazi

Efeld Jeladi Chairperson VNMRC Lungazi

Matias Napololome Chairperson VNMRC Chitungu

Fingstone Seleman Chief Chitungu

Aron Makhasa CA farmer, Mpinda EPA

Machinga District

Mr. Maxwell Chiphwanya District Animal Health and Livestock Development Off.

Mr. Julio Chiwalo Senior Animal Veterinary Officer

Mr. Zulu Sosten Assistant District Agriculture Development Officer

Mr. Yohane Maseko Senior Agriculture Land Resources Conservation Officer

Annie Chirwa Forestry Assistant

Subiu Maurice Mbuka Agric. Extension worker

Emmanuel MaalekandMalekano Agric. Extension worker

Selected community representatives in Machinga

Macdonald Mlongoti Resp. Weather station Domasi

James Masese CA farmer, Domasi EPA

Margreti Khonde CA farmer, Domasi EPA

Sitela Aliki Lead farmer, Domasi EPA

Moses Phulusa Chairperson, Chikala RLC

Frezar Jawasa Chairperson Takonawa RLC

Lisa Kachomonje Vice-chairperson Takonawa RLC

Master Simika Lake Chilwa Level Monitor

Frank Nkamalisya Rain gauge monitor, Chikala


8.4 Annex 4. Institutional Assessment - LEAD

Organisational StructureLEAD SEA is legally registered as an independent trust in Malawi under the name of “The Registered Trustee of Leadership for Environment and Develop-ment” according to Certificate of Incorporation dated 02 February 2014. Permit pending, the organisation wants the full name to be “The Registered Trustee of Leadership for Environment and Development - Malawi”, in short LEAD Malawi (however, using Malawi as part of the official name requires special permit from the president).

In late 2013 LEAD moved out of the office at Chancellor College of the University of Malawi into a rented office in Zomba. This process towards independence from the university structure is partly a response to the 2013 review recommend-ing a more clear definition of roles between the University and LEAD. Before LEAD was organized as a centre within the University of Malawi/ Chancellor College through endorsement by the University Senate.

LEAD expects to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Chancellor College very soon, outlining the conditions for the new relationship. According to LEAD management, this MoU may include some level of support/control with financial management or support with large procurements, if so required by the RNE.


LEAD operates in a network with LEAD International and other LEAD Member Programmes (MPs), but are financially and legally independent from those. As a network, there is exchange of information, but also partnerships in projects under specific agreements. There is no manpower, administrative support, or transfer of funds between LEAD SEA or any MP and LEAD International, unless when specific agreement about specific projects are made.

LEAD has established a Board with 6 members and has a constitution approved by the Board. The present members (all from Malawi) are:

o Ms. Doreen Chanje: Chairperson of the Board. Owner of Food

security companyo Ms. Betty Mahuka: Finance background, previous director

Malawi Environmental Endowement trust, now with electricity supply company

o Mr. Adomson Tong´o : Used to work for forestry department,

later in private sector – wood industries, now fertilizer-seed company

o Dr. Jimmi Namangale: Director of NAREC at Chancellor college

(but acting as an independent)o Dr. Geoffrey Chavula: Malawi Polytechnic (Blantyre) , - expert in

water.o Prof. Sosten Chiota, LEAD SEA Regional Programme Director

LEAD has prepared an organogram, showing the Organisational structure. Clear descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the units are not available (except for Finance and Administration, which will use the Finance manual to guide their activities), but the organogram outlines the main sectors of work reflected in the Strategy.


Organogram for LEAD.

LEAD has a staff of 8 professionals and 6 Administrative support staff (Account-ing, messenger, driver). Of those, half are financed through the LCBCCAP. The LCBCCAP also finance 6 full-time interns at the radio ChancoChanco Com-munity Radio, and 2 (of 3) part time interns at the office.

Category of staff* Funded by LEAD

Funded by LCBCCAP

Total

Professional staff 4 4 8Interns (at Radio Chan-coChanco Community Ra-dio)

0 6 6

Other interns (part time) 1 2 3Volunteers (VSO) 1 0 1Administrative and Support 2 2 4Drivers 1 1 2TOTAL 9 15 24


*Additional drivers contracted on daily basis when needed. For training events (under LEAD), trainers are contracted for the specific training events and most are not part of the permanent staff. Likewise, temporary staff may be contracted for field surveys etc.

Financial systemUntil recently, financial management has followed the Chancellor College pro-cedures, and all procurement was done through the Chancellor College finance department, following the Malawi Government Public Procurement Act 2003. However, since registering as an independent trust in February, LEAD has done its own procurement (only very minor procurements have taken pace so far). LEAD has also prepared a draft Finance manual which is expected to guide the financial management including procurement. The manual is expected to be approved on a board meeting in May 2014. So far, the manual has not been discussed with the RNE or with Deloitte (the audit company used by the RNE). Until the manual is approved by the Board, LEAD uses a blend of the manage-ment procedures for Chancellor College, that of Lead International – and their own draft.

The Finance and Administration unit is well structured, with a head and two assistants. The unit has demonstrated its ability to handle the LCBCCAP ac-counts as well as the general financial management of LEAD. Procurement has been done through the Chancellor College, but the LEAD unit will be able to undertake this task with support from the internal procurement committee. The internal Audit unit of Chancellor College has previously undertaken internal audits of LEAD as agreed in the Inception report, however, this function now needs to be filled by another entity (to be identified by LEAD and approved by the RNE).

Each member of the LCBCCAP consortium, including LEAD, has its own pro-curement committee. In LEAD the four members evaluate documents for supply of goods/services and makes recommendations for the Programme Manager to endorse, to be finally approved by the Programme Coordinator.

LEAD is audited by AMG Global Audit Company (since 2009). Reports from 2011-12-13 have only minor issues in relation to the financial management at LEAD and they have been addressed. Overall, the financial management sys-tem is well functioning but LEAD urgently needs to formalise all procedures in the new institutional setting and re-establish an internal audit function. An independent audit commissioned by the RNE and implemented by Deloitte provided an unqualified (i.e. “clean” ) audit report.

Financial capability and viabilityFunding for LCBCCAP is an important source of income for LEAD. The Pro-gramme funds represent between half and two-thirds of the annual turnover (only the LEAD share of the LCBCCAP funding is considered), and more than half the staff is financed through the programme. The low disbursement for LCBCCAP in 2012 (see Table) is partly due to a bridging period during the HEAL preparation process.

2010 2011 2012


LEAD activities except LCBCAP (USD) 422,000.00 678,000.00 602,000.00LCBCCAP (USD) 1,209,000.00 1,260,000.00 688,000.00Total (USD) 1,631,000.00 1,938,000.00 1,290,000.00LCBCCAP in % of total 74 65 53

Sources of funding for LEAD. Source: Lead Finance and Administration Unit.

The large dependency on one or a few sources of funding exposes the organisa-tion to the risk of suddenly being almost without funding. However, since its fin-ancial independence from LEAD International in 2003, LEAD has been able to continue operating with funds from different sources and has proven its viability in spite of limited income diversification.

However, since its financial independence from LEAD International in 2003, LEAD has been able to continue operating with funds from different sources and has proven its viability in spite of limited income diversification. For the LCBCCAP, spending until December 2013 accounts for 71% of the total budget for the 5 years according to figures from the Finance and Administration Unit of LEAD. While spending may be below the expected spending at this point, it is still acceptable considering a slow start, slow procurement processes through the university, problems with transference of funds to FRIM (not caused by LEAD) and the reduction in disbursement for the programme during the HEAL preparation process. Overall, LEAD has shown capability in terms of budget implementation, and viability in terms of adjusting to the actual situation.

Accountability and transparencyThe LEAD website and the LCBCCAP websites has both been planned with a view to promote a high degree of transparency, but lack of updates means that they are not serving this purpose very well. However, the LCBCCAP does provide semi-annual and annual reports, which are posted on the website. Also, and more importantly, the intensive use of the Radio ChancoChanco Community Radio to inform about programme activities and outputs has proven to be a very powerful tool for dissemination, and the Radio reaches a much wider audience in the Basin than the websites does.

For LCBCCAP, the Programme Management Committee meets quarterly and discuss progress and plan ahead. This process ensures that Districts are con-stantly updated with project progress (since district planning officers participate) and supports transparency and accountability.

Financial audits are regularly done, the LEAD as such are audited annually by AMG Global, whereas the LCBCCAP is audited by Deloitte on behalf of the RNE. Audits done by AMG Global has been unqualified except for minor issues which have been addressed, whereas those from Deloitte have been qualified. In most cases, LEAD has responded to the observations from Deloitte and they have not recurred, but especially the problem with the pool bank account at FRIM, where the audit requested a separate fund for programme was repeated over several audits. This was not an issue under control of the programme activities ( a separate account was not an option according to general government proced-ures).


Monitoring and Evaluation / QA proceduresLEAD does not have an overall system to monitor performance of the organisa-tion, but uses project-specific monitoring in relation to each project / programme they are involved in (see section on monitoring for information on the LCBCCAP monitoring system). There are no written Quality Assurance procedures for the organisation to be followed in project management and delivery. However re-ports (e.g. semi-annual and annual) are circulated internally allowing staff mem-bers to comment, after which (in the case of LCBCCAP) consolidated drafts are sent to PM committee and steering committee, where further comments are usu-ally included before the final report is produced.

HR ManagementStaff members are hired through competitive processes (announcement in the press, interviews, selection based on merits). They are employed on fixed-term contracts, generally for one or two years. Annually an informal discussion (“open appraisal”) is held with each employee, but no formal staff evaluation system is in place. Work descriptions for the different positions are included in the ToR used when hiring the staff members, but no updated overview / compilation of work descriptions exists. No formal staff development policy or procedures are used, but staff members frequently participate in seminars, conferences etc. The staff is dedicated and competent and all the professional staff have degrees at least on master level. Several are pursuing additional degrees parallel to their work.

Staff members were interviewed, and all expresses satisfaction with work condi-tions. They considered the working environment and communication with man-agement to be good, and the overall work load to be acceptable.

Strategic Plans and PoliciesStrategic Plans for LEAD 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 have been developed. The Constitution of LEAD establishes the objectives/ mission of the organisation.The organisation does not have a Business Integrity Management statement or manual.

In relation to LCBCCAP, annual plans, budgets and implementation strategy has been prepared for 2011 and 2012 and uploaded the programme website. How-ever, similar plans are missing for 2013 and 2014 (but budgets are available). Overall, the Programme is guided by the Log-frame for the programme.


Office FacilitiesLEAD is now operating from rented office facilities in Zomba city. The facilities consist of a main building, app. 250 m2 with 5 offices, board room, 2 restrooms, reception, small kitchen and a storeroom. An annex of app. 30m2 holds three offices. The area has a large garden and is surrounded by a wall. They have security arrangements (Guard) at the gate. Offices are well equipped, all staff members have computers, there is access to copy / print facilities. Internet is fluctuating in strength, but is generally accessible.

LEAD Website: The website (www.leadsea.mw ) is potentially an important tool for transparency and accountability. The LEAD website, however, it is not updated and many links to documents are missing or misleading. Links to financial statements from 2003-4 and 2004-5 in both cases opens a document on LEAD International Sustainability Policy. Later statements are also not available. This documents opens also under the heading “Annual Reviews” . Latest calendar event is from 2011; latest training event was announced in 2009. E-bulletins: the website is prepared to show e-bulletins but none are available. The website for LCBCCAP is generally better, however, only certain parts has been updated since programme start due to lack of in-house capacity to manage the site.

Operational CapacityLEAD has generally been able to produce the outputs expected from the organisation and to report on those (financially and technically) in a timely manner. The small organisation is able to act in a flexible manner and rapidly adjust if conditions are changing. They have shown that they are able to head the Programme interventions in the Basin in a competent way, overcoming many of the challenges associated with a complex programme with many stakeholders in a large geographical area. There is, however a need for further institutional development during the present transition phase (moving from the University of Malawi to an independent Trust).


http://www.leadsea.mw/

8.5 Annex 5. Programme Management

The annex present the Programme Management Organogram, as well as the

composition and roles of the Programme Steering Committee (PSC) and the

Programme Management Committee (PMC). Source LCBCCAP management.




8.6 Annex 6. Staff Overview

Overview of staff from implementing partners involved in LCBCCAP. Source

LCBCCAP management.



8.7 Annex 7. Documents consulted

Collaborative Agreement between The Government of the Republic of Malawi and the University of Malawi (Through Leadership for Environment and Development–Southern and Eastern Africa/LEAD, Chancellor College on Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme, 4.4.2011

FRIM 2014. Selected internal papers and publications plus MOV documents. Jamu, D.M., Rebelo, L-M, and Snyder, K (2013). Managing a Ramsar site to

support agriculture and fisheries: Lake Chilwa, Malawi. In Dixon, A., McCartney, M and Wood, A. Wetland management and sustainable livelihoods in Africa. Earthscan Publications, UK;

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme and WALA Projects. Rice Value Chain Analysis in the Lake Chilwa Basin–Machinga and Zomba Districts. 20.5.2012

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. An Overview of Conservation Agriculture in the Lake Chilwa Basin. Willie Sagona and Henry Utila. November 2012

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Annual Report 2011 Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Hotspots

Identification Report, June 2010 Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Joseph Nagoli and

Precious Mwanza (WorldFish Centre). Livelihoods in the Lake Chilwa Basin. Undated.

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Logical Framework Achievements for LCBCCAP. (LFA follow up prepared on Team’s request). 2013

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. M&E User’s Manual. Version 2.2. 2012

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Priority Tree Species for Hotspots Afforestation in the Lake Chilwa Basin for Planting in 2010/11. Compiled by Michael Likoswe, Violet Msukwa, Maganizo Namoto, Ida Mkwezalamba and Clement Chilima. August 2010

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Programme Inception Report 25.5.2010

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Programme Planned Outputs and Achievements for 2012 (LFA follow up submitted to Royal Norwegian Embassy)

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Adaptation Programme. Report on the Lake Chilwa Recession. Mphatso Chapotera, Daniel Jamu and Joseph Banda. 2012

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Programme. Funding Proposal submitted to the Royal Norwegian Embassy, 31 March 2009

Lake Chilwa Basin Climate Change Programme. Gender Mainstreaming in LCBCCAP. Training Report by Dr. Lucy Binauli, Mr Benjamin Kaneka and Dr. Cecilia Maliwichi-Nuirenda. September 2011

LCBCCA 2013. Linkages between Population, Reproductive Health, Gender and Climate Change in Malawi, Case study from Lake Chilwa basin.

LCBCCAP – budget versus actual expenditure – consolidated – March 2014. LCBCCAP – documents with data about impact of CA and explanation on

difference on yields. LCBCCAP and FRIM: summary compiled by the FRIM on data and activities,

March 2014.


LCBCCAP Getting Malawi REDD and READY: FRIM document march 2014. LCBCCAP various nomination letters for the Chanco Radio; March 2014. LEAD 2013. Climate Change Toolkit, a manual for trainers, first edition 2013. LEAD 2014. Constitution of The Registered Trustees of Leadership for Environ-

ment and Development. LEAD MALAWI Finance Manual, draft received 21.02.2014. Management plan for Lake Chilwa and its Catchment, proceedings of a

workshop jointly organised by the Department of Fisheries And university of Malawi, January 1996.

Mloza-Banda, Henry and Stephem Nanthambwe 2010. Conservation Agriculture Programmes and Projects in Malawi: impacts and lessons, by Henry Mloza-Banda and Stephem Nanthambwe submitted to the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force Secretariat, March 2010.

Nagoli, (not yet published) Climate change and air quality Njaya, F., Katherine A. Snyder b, Daniel Jamub, John Wilson, Clive Howard-Wil-

liams,Edward H. Allison e, Neil L. Andrew; 2011. The natural history and fisher-ies ecology of Lake Chilwa, southern Malawi. Journal of Great Lakes Research 37 (2011) 15–25

Phalira, W. and Chiotha, S. 2012. Building social and ecological resilience through ecosystem-based climate change adaptation initiatives in the Lake Chilwa Basin. A Paper presented at the Climate Change Resilience in Practice Workshop organised by Self Help Africa in collaboration with DfID, 26.9.2012 at Malawi Institute of Management, Lilongwe, Malawi

Raffray, Benoit, Mady Biaye 2012. Institutional Capacity Assessment, LEAD Southern & Eastern Africa, 29 August 2012.

Welton PHALIRA and Sosten CHIOTA 2013. Harnessing Ecosystem Based Approaches for Food Security and Adaption to Climate Change in Africa: Case study from the Malawi LCBCCAP. 1st Africa Food Security & Adaption Conference 2013


8.8 Annex 8. M&E Framework
