MCC SEA case study.ppt [Read-Only] - World...

© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment

MCC SEAMCC SEA


MCC programme objectives

• Reduce poverty through:– Human resources capacity– Improved on and off-farm productivity– Increase livestock value– Improve rangeland management


Proposed activities

• Livestock project (US$40 mil)• Indigenous Natural Products Project (US$

8 mil)• Tourism Project (US$34 mil) • Education Project (US$104 mil)


Livestock Project• Veterinary fence on Namibia/Angola border• Maintain disease-free zone• Livestock tracing/tracking• Veterinary support• Human capacity building


Community-based land management project• Support CLBs in decision making and monitoring• Support CLBs and TAs to resolve conflicts• Helping the compiling of LUPs • Capacity building for implementing LUPs and

improving livestock quality


Indigenous Natural Products Project

• Primary Producer Organisations and SME commercial capacity building

• Trade association development


Tourism Project• NP infrastructure• Strengthen tourism marketing• Training of staff in tourism• Support to conservancies and CB tourism –(Game

relocation, breeding camps, wildlife conflict mgt.) • Improving synergies between communities and

private wildlife/tourism operators


Education Project

• Building and renovating schools, training colleges (47 schools in 9 regions)

• Provision of text books• Construct and equip VTCs• Improve training at 4 colleges

Broad-brush assessment of

alternatives and options (mostly related to agric)

Initial assessment of positive and negative impacts of program themes, synergies and

cumulative impacts (focusing mainly on the agric sector)

Preliminary assessment of the agric programme

Thematic SWOTs related to issues in the contract with focus on livestock program

EIAs for individual projects

Common understanding the of the MCC programme, its spatial extent, objectives and assumptions – assess these against National vision and RDPs and various sustainability parameters

Monitoring and Evaluation of individual projects

Auditing of individual projects

Initial assessment of baseline knowledge, data limitations,

research constraints, focusing mainly on the agric sector

Guidance for sector development and institutions

Monitoring and Evaluation of MCC programme against sustainability

parameters

MCC programme auditing

Identify stakeholders and partners

Design PP process

Public participation

Cumulative impact assessment, assessment of synergies and options (SEA report), assessment of avoidance and mitigation, assessment governance capacity: with focus on issues outlined in the contract RAP?

Initial PP

2 3 4 5

678

910

11 12

13

14

15

17

16

18

MCC/GRN Compact

Way forward

1P

hase

1Ph

ase

2 an

d 3

Impl

emen

tatio

n P

hase

Fatal flaw?

Millennium Challenge Corporation• Contracts Technical Representative• Contracting officer

Inter-Ministerial Advisory Committee (IMAC)

Project Management• Team Leader:• Deputy Team Leader:• Project assistant: • Project Administrator:

Phase I Assessment TeamSEA Sector Analysis Team

SEA integration and report RAP Team

Lead: Resettlement expert/RAP Team Leader Leader

Baseline data collection• Livestock expert• Rangeland expert• Social survey and PP expert• Gender expert• Wildlife expert• GIS/Spatial analysis/ Data Mgt. team

Benefits to poor farmers analysis• Socio-economic issues• Gender issues

Resettlement & social impacts of VCF• Rangeland expert• Livestock expert• CBNRM expert• Land Tenure expert• Socio-economic experts (3)

VCF-induced wildlife impacts

• Wildlife experts• GIS/Spatial analysis/Data Mgt.team

Livestock SWOT• Rangeland• Livestock• Land Tenure• N.R economics• Wildlife• Institutions and decision making

Ensuring Stakeholder Consultation and multi donor coordination

Census/Asset Inventory• Participation• Land and property valuer: GIS/Spatial analysis/ Data Mgt.:

Socio-economic survey• Social Scientist: • Enumerators:• Statistical Analyst:

Resettlement Expert• Legal specialist in land acquisition:• Land and property valuer:• Livestock Specialist:• M&E Specialist:

April-May June-October June-October (if at all)

Tourism SWOT• Tourism impacts• CBNRM• Land Tenure• N.R economics• Institutions and decision making

Indigenous products SWOT• Resource mgt & util. impacts• CBNRM• Land Tenure• N.R economics• Institutions and decision making

SEA report compilation

Education SWOT• School construction impacts

Increasing uptake and promote sustainability of rangeland management

Beneficiary analysis for INP

Resettlement needs across all MCC projects

Component linkages and cumulative impacts

Local and National Governance capacity (institutional analysis)

Framework EA and ESMPs for tourism and Education investments

Compact level environmental indicators

‘e-test’


Activity Veterinary fence

Improved livestock

Rotational grazing

Transfrontier conservation

Increase tourism

1 2 3 4 51 Veterinary

fence✔✔✔✔ ✗✗ ✗✗✗✗✗ ✗✗✗

2 Improved livestock

✔✔✔✔

✔✔✔✔✔

3 Rotational grazing

✗✗ ✔✔✔✔

4 Transfrontier conservation

✗✗✗✗✗

✔✔✔✔✔

5 Increase tourism

✗✗✗ ✔✔✔✔✔

Compatibility matrix


Summary of key preliminary findings• Central part of NCAs severely overstocked and

degraded – Angolan pastures are a key coping strategy• 0-10km zone south of the border is the primary impact

zone of the VCF as cattle here graze in Angola daily• Households up to 100km south of border move cattle to

Angola less frequently, but transboundary pastures are important to them

• 130,000+ LSUs will need to be moved if VCF is constructed – much more than originally thought

• Costs of mitigation will likely make the VCF unviable for MCC at the moment

• There are a number of social, ecological and economic impacts and institutional concerns that make the VCF component of the programme risky from an MCC perspective


Use

of G

IS in

the

SE

A


Key negative socio-economic impacts of VCF

• Poor households will have inadequate cattle for improved livelihoods, and no chance of entering commercial livestock sector

• Smaller remaining herds limit various social needs (funerals, weddings, etc.)

• Concern over ability of poor households to cope with added burden caused by ‘reduced options’– life expectancy down, homecare burdens, labour, climate change?

• Social tension expected in receiving areas –needs very careful planning and extensive consultation.


Key negative land and rangeland impacts of VCF

• Risk that ‘vacated’ areas will be filled by nearby areas, and that de-stocking will not really happen (can be mitigated)

• Risk that receiving areas will become degraded once ‘opened up’ (can be mitigated)

• Loss of soil fertility because of less manure in primary impact zone - due to fewer cattle


Key negative wildlife impacts of VCF

• Human/wildlife conflict zones around parks• Fences will restrict wildlife movements, leading to

habitat destruction• MET vision is promoting expanded wildlife

movements,TFC and TFT– VCF/DFS creates opposite conditions

• Could be conflicts in conservancies if more cattle• Vulnerable species are wild dog and rhino


Preliminary recommendations• Delay building VCF• Implement other programme components

(gradually change local culture regarding livestock)• Over time, improve livestock quality, rangelands,

marketing, offtake rates, management systems, etc.

• Improve ‘frame conditions’ ASAP – e.g. tenure, governance, decision support systems, stakeholder involvement, etc.

• Develop ‘receiving areas’ in an environmentally sound way (planning and capacity building needed)

• See VCF as the ‘cherry on the cake’!

Key lessons• Important deliverable expected too early –

major flaw in the TORs• Time pressure reduced opportunity for

SEA Team to interact more with Client –should have been more interaction

• Experienced, multi-disciplinary team that communicated well internally, was a strength


MCC SEA case study.ppt [Read-Only] - World...

Documents

Transcript of MCC SEA case study.ppt [Read-Only] - World...