ALM UNDP

Key lessons learned:

1. Institute measures that speed up production of technical information: Although implementation rate has improved to some extent, the project is still experiencing slow movement for Outcomes 2 and 4. IUCN needs to institute measures that clearly demonstrate speeding up the production of the technical information from the two outcomes.
2. Decouple outcomes, if possible, to ensure timely ensure the timely delivery of project outcomes in the most efficient way by the end of the project duration: Several changes at the project input/activity levels are recommended and approved by the PSC to exercise the adaptive management during the project implementation to ensure the timely delivery of the project outcomes in the most resource efficient way by the end of the project duration. The climate change component (Outcome 3) has been decoupled from the flow assessment (Outcome 1) so that the IFM can be completed without further delay without compromising the quality of the climate data to be yielded from the climate change component. Outcomes 2 and 4 depended to some extent on technical information generated under Outcome 1. Consequently the deliberate slow downs in Outcome 1 introduced some delays to these other outcomes.
3. Be aware of logistical constraints (e.g. staffing capacity, deficiencies in methodologies of climate change modeling): In the community participation component (Outcome 2) the roadmap for establishment of the catchment forums has been revised to improve implementation and take into consideration the staffing capacity within the PBWO and SNV. This includes establishment of a core team to implement and monitor the process. The core team and experts are training facilitation teams to build the capacity ion IWRM in communities and to enable the formation of catchment forums. In terms of Outcome 1, experts' review of the original climate change modeling found deficiencies in the methodology. This resulted in delay in conducting the final workshop for the flow assessment to conclude the Flow Assessment component. PSC made recommendation on how to proceed with the climate change modeling and avoid further delay in concluding the flow assessment component, which allowed the move towards finalizing component 1.
4. Identify synergies with similar projects and ensure there is coordination between them: The project and PMU faced challenges to ensure synergies and coordination among a number of projects under the Pangani River Basin Management Programme. It also faced challenges to ensure the timely delivery of outputs that heavily require communities' involvement and participation. The inclusion of new partners/projects in the existing Pangani River Basin Management Programme indeed posed challenges but brought opportunities and flexibilities at the same time which cannot be realized by a project-based approach. The PSC and PMU focused on the opportunities that the programmatic approach brought to ensure the overall project/programme objective, using the adaptive management. For example, budget reallocation from the community-based adaptation pilot activities to the climate study was necessary to ensure that the climate data generate by the project is scientifically reliable. The reallocation was approved by the PSC. Later, PMU, together with IUCN managed to source funding from another project under the same Programme to conduct the community-based activities without significant compromise.
5. Allocate time to develop meaningful partnerships: The time needed to engage communities fully in the IWRM planning processes is gained partly by adding a few new partners/projects under the same Programme which resulted in the extension of the expected funded period of the Programme. Management and implementation of the Programme supported by multiple projects/donors will take significant extra efforts, but the project witnessed during this reporting period that it also offered significant flexibility.

Key lessons learned:

1. Institute measures that speed up production of technical information: Although implementation rate has improved to some extent, the project is still experiencing slow movement for Outcomes 2 and 4. IUCN needs to institute measures that clearly demonstrate speeding up the production of the technical information from the two outcomes.
2. Decouple outcomes, if possible, to ensure timely ensure the timely delivery of project outcomes in the most efficient way by the end of the project duration: Several changes at the project input/activity levels are recommended and approved by the PSC to exercise the adaptive management during the project implementation to ensure the timely delivery of the project outcomes in the most resource efficient way by the end of the project duration. The climate change component (Outcome 3) has been decoupled from the flow assessment (Outcome 1) so that the IFM can be completed without further delay without compromising the quality of the climate data to be yielded from the climate change component. Outcomes 2 and 4 depended to some extent on technical information generated under Outcome 1. Consequently the deliberate slow downs in Outcome 1 introduced some delays to these other outcomes.
3. Be aware of logistical constraints (e.g. staffing capacity, deficiencies in methodologies of climate change modeling): In the community participation component (Outcome 2) the roadmap for establishment of the catchment forums has been revised to improve implementation and take into consideration the staffing capacity within the PBWO and SNV. This includes establishment of a core team to implement and monitor the process. The core team and experts are training facilitation teams to build the capacity ion IWRM in communities and to enable the formation of catchment forums. In terms of Outcome 1, experts' review of the original climate change modeling found deficiencies in the methodology. This resulted in delay in conducting the final workshop for the flow assessment to conclude the Flow Assessment component. PSC made recommendation on how to proceed with the climate change modeling and avoid further delay in concluding the flow assessment component, which allowed the move towards finalizing component 1.
4. Identify synergies with similar projects and ensure there is coordination between them: The project and PMU faced challenges to ensure synergies and coordination among a number of projects under the Pangani River Basin Management Programme. It also faced challenges to ensure the timely delivery of outputs that heavily require communities' involvement and participation. The inclusion of new partners/projects in the existing Pangani River Basin Management Programme indeed posed challenges but brought opportunities and flexibilities at the same time which cannot be realized by a project-based approach. The PSC and PMU focused on the opportunities that the programmatic approach brought to ensure the overall project/programme objective, using the adaptive management. For example, budget reallocation from the community-based adaptation pilot activities to the climate study was necessary to ensure that the climate data generate by the project is scientifically reliable. The reallocation was approved by the PSC. Later, PMU, together with IUCN managed to source funding from another project under the same Programme to conduct the community-based activities without significant compromise.
5. Allocate time to develop meaningful partnerships: The time needed to engage communities fully in the IWRM planning processes is gained partly by adding a few new partners/projects under the same Programme which resulted in the extension of the expected funded period of the Programme. Management and implementation of the Programme supported by multiple projects/donors will take significant extra efforts, but the project witnessed during this reporting period that it also offered significant flexibility.