© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
MCC SEAMCC SEA
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
MCC programme objectives
• Reduce poverty through:– Human resources capacity– Improved on and off-farm productivity– Increase livestock value– Improve rangeland management
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
Proposed activities
• Livestock project (US$40 mil)• Indigenous Natural Products Project (US$
8 mil)• Tourism Project (US$34 mil) • Education Project (US$104 mil)
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
Livestock Project• Veterinary fence on Namibia/Angola border• Maintain disease-free zone• Livestock tracing/tracking• Veterinary support• Human capacity building
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
Indigenous Natural Products Project
• Primary Producer Organisations and SME commercial capacity building
• Trade association development
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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’
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
Use
of G
IS in
the
SE
A
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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.
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment
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
© 2008 - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment