MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF FITCA (K).pdf

Objective0.1. The objective of this assignment was to try and identify what had caused thedeterioration in relationships between the project and the national institutionson the one hand, the internal problems related to local staff employed in theproject on the other and recommend measures that would improve and speedup overall project implementation for the benefit of the communities in theregion.FindingsF.1. An organizational structure for implementing project activities had not beendeveloped. Staff roles were not clearly defined and reporting lines were notspecified. In addition, composition of senior project management team wasbiased in favour of technical excellence at the expense of the other skillsnecessary for effective project management.F.2. Administrative and personnel policies and procedures (reporting, out-ofpocket allowances, transport etc} had not been formulated. Staff are undertwo different types of contracts—that of "'administrative order" and the "workplan and cost estimate" order. Staff employed under the administrative orderare comparatively better paid. In general, staff under both orders wererelatively less well paid compared to staff in similar OAU/IBAR projectsBesides the nature and scope of staff contracts, comparatively "poor" salariesand lack of policies had caused job insecurity and contributed to low moraleamong some staff.F.3. Internal and external communications were not well developed. Localpoliticians and provincial administration did not have adequate informationabout project activities.F.S. Although KETRI has previously carried out work for the project, relations haddeteriorated to an extent where KETRI could no longer participate inFITCA(K) activities. Without apportioning blame, it was apparent that bothFITCA(K) and KETRI were responsible for this breakdown in communication.Although the DVS is the acknowledged entry point for project activities in theministry, it did not give adequate support to the project. Indeed, in Nyanzaprovince it was reported that a DVS/ GoK budgetary allocation for monitoringtsetse related activities did not exist.F.6. Staff of the MOARD and other GoK staff based at the district (includingthose from KETRI) were happy with the project goal and objectives. Theywere willing to continue collaborating with the project. But staff of theMOARD is unhappy with the field allowances and the level of logisticalfacilitation provided by the project. F.7. Although participatory planning for project activities was conducted togetherwith the stakeholders, implementation was frequently not done according toplans. Stakeholders were not given regular feedback on the status of plannedactivities and sometimes staff were not given advance notice to prepare forimplementation of activities.F.B. The project's innovative efforts to involve the private sector in addressing thesustainability of the project are commendable. However, the DVS needs toensure that district based staff do not sabotage some of the interventions.There is scope for more networking and collaboration of FITCA (K)with otherprojects and institutions in a number of areas in order to avoid "re-inventingthe wheel".F.9. The PMU had displayed little trust for staff of the MOARD personnel workingon the project. Accorded more trust, however, they could be more useful tothe project -especially in subject matter areas where they had demonstratedexperience.F.10. The role of RDI/ Stockwatch in the PMU was not clear. However, theirinfluence in some decisions made by project management was seen by anumber of stakeholders as interfering with stakeholder relationships andgiving the project bad publicity. The OAU/IBAR did not take active role inproject management.F.11. The project has excellent technical capacity for the design of tsetse controland livestock management interventions. It has initiated innovative tsetsecontrol activities, and project beneficiaries are enthusiastic about them.However, more activities need to be implemented to sustain beneficiaryinterest. Although beneficiaries are satisfied with ongoing tsetse control andrural development activities, they are unhappy with some aspects of projectimplementation.ConclusionsC1. None of the problems being faced by the project is insurmountable. What isrequired is a desire and commitment by the main stakeholders, namely KETRIand the DVS to consciously contribute to the rural development of thecommunities in the project area. A new sense of purpose by all partiesconcerned is required. In particular, re-focusing on the achievement of projectobjectives instead of preoccupation with issues of project ownership and thecontrol of financial resources by all stakeholders is required.