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
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
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
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
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
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.||