MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF FITCA (K).pdf
African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources
Item Usage Stats
Objective 0.1. The objective of this assignment was to try and identify what had caused the deterioration in relationships between the project and the national institutions on the one hand, the internal problems related to local staff employed in the project on the other and recommend measures that would improve and speed up overall project implementation for the benefit of the communities in the region. Findings F.1. An organizational structure for implementing project activities had not been developed. Staff roles were not clearly defined and reporting lines were not specified. In addition, composition of senior project management team was biased in favour of technical excellence at the expense of the other skills necessary for effective project management. F.2. Administrative and personnel policies and procedures (reporting, out-of pocket allowances, transport etc} had not been formulated. Staff are under two different types of contracts—that of "'administrative order" and the "work plan and cost estimate" order. Staff employed under the administrative order are comparatively better paid. In general, staff under both orders were relatively less well paid compared to staff in similar OAU/IBAR projects Besides the nature and scope of staff contracts, comparatively "poor" salaries and lack of policies had caused job insecurity and contributed to low morale among some staff. F.3. Internal and external communications were not well developed. Local politicians and provincial administration did not have adequate information about project activities. F.S. Although KETRI has previously carried out work for the project, relations had deteriorated to an extent where KETRI could no longer participate in FITCA(K) activities. Without apportioning blame, it was apparent that both FITCA(K) and KETRI were responsible for this breakdown in communication. Although the DVS is the acknowledged entry point for project activities in the ministry, it did not give adequate support to the project. Indeed, in Nyanza province it was reported that a DVS/ GoK budgetary allocation for monitoring tsetse related activities did not exist. F.6. Staff of the MOARD and other GoK staff based at the district (including those from KETRI) were happy with the project goal and objectives. They were willing to continue collaborating with the project. But staff of the MOARD is unhappy with the field allowances and the level of logistical facilitation provided by the project. F.7. Although participatory planning for project activities was conducted together with the stakeholders, implementation was frequently not done according to plans. Stakeholders were not given regular feedback on the status of planned activities and sometimes staff were not given advance notice to prepare for implementation of activities. F.B. The project's innovative efforts to involve the private sector in addressing the sustainability of the project are commendable. However, the DVS needs to ensure that district based staff do not sabotage some of the interventions. There is scope for more networking and collaboration of FITCA (K)with other projects and institutions in a number of areas in order to avoid "re-inventing the wheel". F.9. The PMU had displayed little trust for staff of the MOARD personnel working on the project. Accorded more trust, however, they could be more useful to the project -especially in subject matter areas where they had demonstrated experience. F.10. The role of RDI/ Stockwatch in the PMU was not clear. However, their influence in some decisions made by project management was seen by a number of stakeholders as interfering with stakeholder relationships and giving the project bad publicity. The OAU/IBAR did not take active role in project management. F.11. The project has excellent technical capacity for the design of tsetse control and livestock management interventions. It has initiated innovative tsetse control activities, and project beneficiaries are enthusiastic about them. However, more activities need to be implemented to sustain beneficiary interest. Although beneficiaries are satisfied with ongoing tsetse control and rural development activities, they are unhappy with some aspects of project implementation. Conclusions C1. None of the problems being faced by the project is insurmountable. What is required is a desire and commitment by the main stakeholders, namely KETRI and the DVS to consciously contribute to the rural development of the communities in the project area. A new sense of purpose by all parties concerned is required. In particular, re-focusing on the achievement of project objectives instead of preoccupation with issues of project ownership and the control of financial resources by all stakeholders is required.