IWRM II Olifants / Doorn – Strand 3 Projects Project ... doc/od_pmg_minutes/20080220_OD_PMG… · 3.1. Report on meeting with Municipalities 07/02/08 and Follow up 3.2. WUA Capacity

IWRM II Olifants / Doorn – Strand 3 Projects

Project Monitoring Group Meeting

Minutes of the meeting held in Bellville on 20 February 2008 at DWAF from 9am to 3pm

Attendance:

Ms Nosie (Raquel) Mazwi (NM)

Assistant Director: Water Quality Management & Acting Catchment Manager Olifants/Doorn WMA, DWAF, 021 950 7206, 082 802 7128, [email protected]

Ms Nolitha Zuzani (NZ)Water Quality Management Olifants/Doorn WMA, DWAF, 021 950 7274, [email protected]

Mr Warren Dreyer (WD)Water Quality Management Olifants/Doorn WMA, DWAF, 021 950 7138, [email protected]

Mr Willie Enright (WE)Director: Western Cape, Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry, 082 807 3535 [email protected]

Ms Nosie (Raquel) Mazwi (NM)

Assistant Director: Water Quality Management & Acting Catchment Manager Olifants/Doorn WMA, DWAF, 021 950 7206, 082 802 7128, [email protected]

Mr Roger Short (RS) Technical Advisor to the IWRM Programme, 082 507 9465, [email protected]

Mr Shawn Johnston (SJ)Sustainable Futures ZA, 083 325 9965, FAX 086 510 2537, [email protected]

Mr Gareth McConkey (GMcC) Jantech cc, 021 712 4260, FAX 086 510 2537, [email protected]

Ms Gazelle McDougall (GMcD)

GARC, 022 482 1016, 082 874 9045, FAX 022 482 1154, [email protected]

Ms Herschelle Milford (HM) SPP, 083 748 1009, FAX 021 448 0105, [email protected]

Mr Nik Wullschleger (NW)Project Co-ordination to IWRM II Olifants Doorn, Informage cc, 023 347 0336, 083 735 2038, [email protected]

Mr Gus Pickard (GP) Contractor to Informage cc, 083 978 2359, [email protected]

Mr Faldee Abrahams (FA)Contractor to Informage cc, 021 448 1423, 082 652 8568, [email protected]

Ms Gisela Wullschelger (GW) Informage cc, 023 347 0336, 083 338 1885, [email protected]

Ms Salome Horn (SH) Vukani Makhosikazi (IWRM Strand 3 Project LB01), 084 273 8984

Ms Sarah Joseph (SJ) Vukani Makhosikazi (IWRM Strand 3 Project LB01), 073 861 5464

PMG Meeting Minutes – IWRM II Olifants Doorn – January 2008Page 1 of 22

mailto:[email protected]




























Apologies:

Mr Derek Weston (DW)Deputy Director: Institutional Oversight and Governance – IWRM National Project Manager, Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry, 082 806 3863, [email protected]

Ms Tshiamo Matabane (TM)

Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, National, 082 317 7395, [email protected]

Mr Julian Conrad (JC) GEOSS

Welcome:

NM welcomed the group to the meeting and thanked Goedgedacht Agricultural Resource Centre (GARC) and Surplus People’s Project (SPP) for attending at such short notice. NM also welcomed the delegates from the Strand 3 Projects, who had traveled from Lambert’s Bay. NM welcomed GMcC who is involved with the Waste Water Treatment Plant management project (WWTP), and SJ who is involved with the Water User Association (WUA) capacity building pilot project.

Apologies were recorded and the attendance register was circulated.

NM explained the purpose of the quarterly PMG meeting was to supplement the monthly PMG by inviting the Strand 3 representatives and the preferred service providers (PSPs) to report back on progress and be present for a question and answer (Q&A) session with the IWRM Olifants Doorn team.

NM added that SPP and GARC had attended a meeting on the 19th of February, during which a Memorandum of Understanding to work together to support the strand 3 projects had been drafted. SPP and GARC will now start attending the monthly PMG meetings.

The Minutes of the Meeting on 17 January 2008 were checked for corrections. A change was made to the e-mail address for Willie Enright. The rest of the pages were found to be a true reflection of the last meeting. NM proposed the minutes for acceptance and RS seconded the proposal.

Adoption of the Agenda:

The agenda was agreed with the following points –

1. Issues arising from the previous minutes1.1. Kaap Agri1.2. Follow Up Compendium1.3. Participation Certificates1.4. IWRM Web Site1.5. Student Program

2. Report on Strand 3 Projects2.1. Financial and Progress Report2.2. Plan of Action for non-performing projects2.3. Report on meeting with SPP, Emerging Farmer Project, Petersfield Group and GARC2.4. Call for new proposals2.5. Planned visit to projects by projects2.6. Big Roof project intervention2.7. Breevlei erosion2.8. New Projects2.9. Project Extensions

3. Strand 1 Projects3.1. Report on meeting with Municipalities 07/02/08 and Follow up3.2. WUA Capacity Building Project (S Johnston)3.3. WWTP Management Project (G McConkey)3.4. Sandveld Project (J Conrad)






3.5. PGDS Alignment Project3.6. Proposals received so far from the Municipalities3.7. Planned workshop with Municipalities3.8. Projects under negotiation (New Projects)

4. Water Week / Follow Up Conference4.1. IWRM Expo4.2. Theme4.3. Invites – Portfolio Committee, Funders, Municipalities, WUAs, Schools and Projects4.4. Accommodation4.5. Transport4.6. Programme4.7. Exhibition, Posters, Handouts, T-Shirts?

5. General5.1. International IWRM Conference 10-12 March 20085.2. National Summit5.3. Training Materials being developed in KZN for Community Resource Centres (Water, Hygiene,

Health, IWRM)5.4. Province of Piemont & Telarad Training Program

6. Close


Discussion and Action Minutes:

1. Issues arising from the previous minutes1.1. Kaap Agri: NM spoke about the letter that was sent out on Friday, the previous week. NW said that

Barend Sylvester (in charge of the BEE component of Kaap Agri) had requested an updated schedule of purchases and a copy of the letter from DWAF, which NW supplied to him immediately. He was planning to ensure that the strand 3 projects get discounts and support in future.

1.2. Follow Up Compendium: The follow up compendium represents a reprint of the compendium in magazine form. More information will be added, and the magazine edition will be sent out to all government departments and the portfolio committee (Water) so that it can be distributed in parliament. NW said that he would be working on the next edition with RS on 22 February, meeting with the printers and graphic design and production team. Everything will be done to ensure that the publication is completed before Water Week and the International IWRM Conference. RS reported that there is a possibility of some unspent funds from National DWAF that could be used to produce the compendiums. NW confirmed with RS the total number of copies to produce; 10,000 to cover the International IWRM Conference, the National Water Summit, the Water Week Expo and Workshop in Doringbay, and to distribute to potential funders, government departments, and via the Portfolio Committee on Water. GMcC added that it may be good to also distribute copies to the expected 1000 delegates that will attend the WISA event at Sun City in the course of 2008. NW suggested that the number of copies we need for the coming months could be printed, and a third edition could be produced after March which included Strand I projects and the full 40 Strand 3 projects. The later edition should also include pages for KwaZulu-Natal and North West Province projects. NW suggested that 5000 copies be produced now. RS will confirm (RS Action)

1.3. Participation Certificates: All the certificates have been handed out (most were handed out at the Launch of the CMA). The only projects that have not received theirs are Ebenhaeser Alien Invasive Plants Project (EB01) and Ebenhaeser Water Awareness and Tap & Leak Repair (EB02).

1.4. IWRM Web Site: NW said that the plan was to update the web site with documents, minutes and reports on a monthly basis. GMcC suggested that the WISA web site could also be used to get the message out, confirming that he is in a position to assist since he is one of the people that manage that web site. NW will discuss this further with GMcC (NW Action)

1.5. Student Program: NM explained that the student list had been received and the plan was to deploy the students to assist with IWRM projects in the Olifants/Doorn (OD), basing them at the short-staffed Clanwilliam DWAF offices. The number of people that are needed should be finalized. 1 could be deployed at each municipality for example. The students are available from July 2008.

1.5.1. RS added that during the meeting with DWAF Learning Academy (LA), it was confirmed that the LA provides the students with bursaries and financial support, so IWRM could assist with transport costs. It was clear that the students need a strong mentoring relationship with a supervisor, as a requisite from the LA.

1.5.2. HM asked whether the students could be placed at organizations such as SPP. HM stated that students in municipalities have experienced difficulties due to the mentorship program not being in place or sufficiently strong to provide the necessary support and guidance to the students.

1.5.3. SJ added that the biggest obstacle the students will face in the OD region is language, and the program should be careful to deploy students who are ill equipped to handle the cultural and language barriers they are bound to face in the field. They will need to be oriented and mentored properly. NM replied that the DWAF Region will be responsible for the students. NM will check with the municipalities whether they have the capacity to take responsibility for the students. Cederberg Municipality has confirmed their interest in hosting a student. If other organizations what to invite students to work with them, this can be worked out.

1.5.4. RS said that the idea was that the students would support activities under IWRM, such as within the WWTP Management Project with municipalities.

1.5.5. GMcC said that the student program could work if the DWAF Region places the students and actively monitors them as a group only deploying them after clear instruction is given on their roles and responsibilities. This group model will provide support from within as they get to know each other and share their experiences in the field, and they can be more easily supported with regular report backs and evaluation to measure growth. SJ said that it will be important to include a social element as a specific outcome of the student’s mentoring.

1.5.6. NW asked who is responsible for the student’s program. WD answered from his experience that the student arranges with the mentor what they will be doing for the year, the detail of which is submitted to the LA who adds any additional training the student may need into the program. NM said the assessments take place on a quarterly basis.


1.5.7. NM added that at the Region’s Management Meeting, there was a reluctance to take on interns in favour of appointing permanent staff members. RS said that he would do a one-page report on utilizing the students for IWRM (RS Action)

1.5.8. NM concluded that the subject could be discussed further at the next PMG.

2. Report on Strand 3 Projects2.1. Financial and Progress Report: 2.1.1. GW presented the “Watershed” Spreadsheet to the group, explaining how the projects had

been categorized as “Successfully Closing”, “Apply for Extension of Time” and “Review and Re-apply”. (See Appendix A) The percentages had been worked out on the project budget less the 1% Bank Fees, 10% Contingency and R5,000.00 Audit Fee. Projects that had spent 75% or more of project budget were classified as “Successfully Closing”; Projects that had spent more than 25% of their project budget were classified as “Apply for Extension of Time” and those that had spent less than 25% of project budget were classified as “Review and Re-apply”. The Petersfield Farm projects had fallen within the criteria for “Apply for Extension of Time”, but project behaviour in terms of project administration and group governance had resulted in them being measured as “Review and Re-apply” – the three projects were currently being supported to re-work their project proposal into one single project, with a single project management structure and shared goals which are achievable and represented the best way in which to use the available land. NW added that the projects are all being audited at Informage to ensure that project records are adequately in place for an official audit (original copies of invoices, receipts, timesheets and travel logs were collected during the M&E field visits in November and are being matched into the filed transaction documentation held at Informage offices).

2.1.2. The following Financial Report was updated for the PMG:

TOTAL paid out and committed to projects to date was R 1,018,292.40 TOTAL in project budget for the project period is R 3,335,188.64

Representing a 30,5% total expenditure to dateTOTAL remainder to end of the project period is R 2,316,896.24

(See Appendix B)

2.1.3. GW presented the preliminary results of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report (See Appendix C), which was in a “traffic light” format, making it easy to read the overall impression of confidence in the areas that were tested during the November M&E round. The full report is currently being completed, to include a more holistic review of project progress and behaviour in the period July 2007 to February 2008. Field visit interviews, tick sheets, internal audits, and self monitoring tools are to be included in the full M&E report to provide an overview of the different indicators that have emerged, and progress toward the goals of IWRM among Strand 3 projects in the OD region. The full report will be released in the course of the coming week.

2.1.3.1. GW explained that the traffic light format can show at a glance the levels of confidence found by the field workers at the different projects within the 5 sections. She explained that the white areas (N/A = not applicable) reflect that the criteria being measured either did not have any relevance to the project concerned, or there was no evidence on site which could enable the field workers to assign a value to the criterion.

2.1.3.2. HM said that the information was useful, but it is important not to have unrealistically high expectations of the projects. Where the projects are living with constraints that are real, one needs to remember that some of these ideals are very difficult to achieve. RS said that the intention is to assist projects in developing self confidence and sustainability, to support them in developing their own capacity, by highlighting the criteria for star performance; the program is guiding and supporting the projects toward these objectives. FA said that it is true that a lot of the things the projects are doing are a “first”. They have no understanding of asset management, little grasp of accounting and book keeping, and when in the field, he had wanted to spend more time explaining these concepts, but time was a major constraint and much remained not clearly understood. GP added that the idea that the criteria were “high level” had been discussed before they had gone into the field, but the team had decided that it would be an empowering tool so that projects get exposure and learn through the monitoring and evaluation process. It is possible that changes will have been made by the time they visit the projects again in March. GP said that the items that are at a high level for most of the projects at the moment will encourage them to grow and learn more.


2.1.3.3. GMcD said that is was important to have a benchmark against which to measure progress, the projects will now be aware of what is being looked at and will develop accordingly; one should not treat the participants like “babies” if one wants them to grow to maturity.

2.1.3.4. SH said that at their project one of the crops failed and the produce was not good enough for the shops, so they gave the vegetables away to the community. Now the community is even more interested in buying produce from the project.

2.1.3.5. NW showed the group a project based Balanced Scorecard (for Vanrhynsdorp Opkomende Boere, Project VA01), in which the project participants develop their own indicators and discuss them in a group meeting to determine whether the factors affecting their performance are improving or deteriorating in terms of achieving the project goals.

2.1.3.6. NW asked for input from the group on how to communicate the results of the M&E to the projects. RS suggested that a workshop be held where the M&E report can be taken to the community. The project participants and beneficiaries should be able to tell us how they feel about the report contents, and what they feel is needed. A review should always be used in a positive way. HM suggested that the report in the current format should not be given to the communities or projects, it could be written up as a case, and then given to the projects in a way which allows them to decide how the information should be distributed or managed. NM said that these pages are only for the PMG meeting’s purposes; GW will be completing the full report which can be translated and distributed later.

2.1.3.7. FA added that the training needs that were identified by the projects as part of the M&E questionnaire should also be mentioned in the report.

.3 Plan of Action for non-performing projects: NW said that it is the project coordinator’s explicit intention not to “lose” any projects, but rather to go back and rework the projects until they are realistic and practical, and contribute to the goals of IWRM. RS said that the projects will not be closed down; they should be supported toward sustainability.

.3.1 NW asked whether the applications for new projects from successful groups, which involve establishing a processing factory for produce from the lands developed under the first project could be considered. RS said that this is an acceptable proposal and will be supported. DANIDA wants depth which means that projects should demonstrate the link to IWRM and Poverty Alleviation.

2.1.4. HM suggested that alternative sources of funds should also be looked at, as IWRM is only one of the funding sources available to support the projects. NW responded that obtaining funds from IWRM is an easier route for the projects as some of the other processes are cumbersome and unreliable due to stumbling block within government.

2.1.5. NW asked that SPP share the information on alternative funds. HM agreed. SJ offered that there is also a directory on local stakeholders with procedures for funding, due dates in easy to read format available from the Aquaculture and Mari-culture Industry. (HM Action) (SJ Action)

2.1.6. RS suggested that new project proposals should also look at water harvesting. This would be directly addressing the water element of IWRM. Clear information on how many people will benefit from the project is also required in new submissions.

2.1.7. SH asked that the projects currently under “Extension of Time” not be forgotten later.2.1.8. GMcD said that it is important that other funders come on board so that the projects don’t get

into a comfort zone with IWRM. HM said that the workshops, meetings and activities that are regularly taking place in the field help to raise awareness for other roleplayers and contributors. RS said that the project team should keep working at getting project leaders to take responsibility for fund raising and broadening their support networks. (NW, GW, FA, GP Action)

2.1.9. NM said that Connie September (Portfolio Committee – Water) had pledged to get commitment from others on how they will support the projects, and will bring people to the Expo in Doringbay. SJ said that the Doringbay Expo had been mentioned to people in the WUAs, received positive responses, project ideas and support for IWRM.

2.2. Report on meeting with SPP, Emerging Farmer Project, Petersfield Group and GARC:2.2.1. NM spoke about the meeting held between DWAF, SPP and GARC on 19 February 2008,

which resulted in a draft MOU that defines the roles that each group will play so that they can support DWAF and Informage (IA) in supporting the Strand 3 projects

2.2.1.1. HM said that SPP would continue working with the projects without requesting additional funding from IWRM unless the work that needs to be done is new and additional. This component will be described and requested from IWRM.


2.2.1.2. NM said that the draft MOU would be circulated for comment early in the new week. It would be signed officially at the Doringbay Expo. SPP and GARC will need to have their contracts renewed with Vendzulu to effect payments. (NW action with Derek Weston)

2.2.1.3. HM asked whether the Petersfield Farm projects would be able to re-apply for project funding. NW replied that the non-performance clause in the contract will be referred to, but no projects should be lost. The balance for the three projects is R270,000.00 which is the sum that the new unified project would be able to apply for. The project group also needs to clean up the household, sort out roles and responsibilities, identify and determine how to deal with stumbling blocks, finalise the agreement to work together on the unified project, and write a letter to be submitted with the application, timeframe and description of how the money will be used. IA will draw a line, do an audit, request the projects to produce an asset register for the goods purchased, explain any change of ownership, and then they will be able to renegotiate the contract and hopefully develop through the process. RS added that this procedure represents part of the empowerment process, management training through learning by doing.

2.2.1.4. GMcD explained that GARC’s strength lies in production and financial management. It is not their intention to get involved more broadly, but will assist in their areas of expertise. She has provided NW with an idea of the cost involved. SPP and GARC will be meeting the following day to talk about collaborating more in the period after IWRM.

2.2.1.5. There was some discussion around the table on the history of the Petersfield Farm, the involvement of the municipality in the land, the intentions of the roleplayers and stakeholders, and the reasons behind the perceived failure of the projects on the land known as Petersfield farm.

2.2.1.6. SJ said that some of the work done with the WUA had resulted in the group deciding that as part of the WUA training program, they would come to Petersfield Farm, ensure water release, support to the micro projects, and services from WUA members. Mr Smith (who worked with Elsenburg and Nietvoorbij (Dept of Agriculture – Stellenbosch) would act a mentor to the group regarding farming practices, including organic practices. RS requested that SJ document this information and circulate to PMG. SJ said that he and Glenda Raven would be doing so that afternoon. (SJ Action)

2.3. Call for new proposals / New Projects / Project Extensions2.3.1. NW summarized the plan of action that is currently underway. The call for proposals closes on

25 February 2008. 2.3.2. The meeting at Clanwilliam on 7 February 2008 was well attended by Strand 3 projects, but

there were few municipalities represented. The projects that have submitted proposals to date were listed on a page which NW handed out for discussion. (See appendix E)

2.3.2.1. NW confirmed that there would definitely be 40 projects in total, over and above the project extensions that could be negotiated with existing groups. NW asked how much time is available to finalise the submissions and how much detail is needed.

2.3.2.2. RS said that each region’s final submission is due on 11 March 2008, which means the preliminary project proposals need to be handed in well before then. All projects should be described on two page reports (NW and GW Action), aimed at the evaluation committee meeting where funding allocations could be finalized. The two pager should include information about partners and the actual IWRM contribution needed. NW said that it would be best then to set a ceiling on the funds available per application, to keep to the two-page format and then complete submission. (See Appendix E) RS concluded that it is agreed to support the projects on the list, subject to the findings of a selection committee meeting. If the project fails or under spends, the funds remaining will be re-allocated to other projects that are able to show focus and work toward the principles of IWRM.

2.3.2.3. RS confirmed that the selection process would still be followed. A steering committee meeting would be arranged. (RS Action)

2.3.2.4. NM said that the Project period is now until October / November 2009 and they should get started as soon as possible. RS Said that the projects could start in April with their inception phases. RS proposed that a workshop be planned for Clanwilliam where new projects can attend and be briefed on project management and structures. GARC and SPP should also attend this workshop and work as co-facilitators. NW added that the previous workshop of this nature had served to tighten up business plans, timeframes and budgets.

2.3.2.5. HM asked whether a project like LB01 (Vukani Makhosikazi) who are currently in extension of time, would be expected to submit a proposal for the 25th of February as


well. RS replied that they would be allowed to go into a second phase when they finished the first project, especially if they can find ways of going deeper on IWRM, looking at Water Harvesting, Recycling etc. The key would be to focus the project on using water effectively, impacting poverty and gender in the community. In the next round, the projects should illustrate how they will strengthen IWRM criteria, building on responsible integrated water use. NW clarified that existing projects would be able to apply for funds later, which will be set aside now. Each project’s original budget will simply be made available again for future applications.

2.3.3. NW asked that additional projects that would address common problems at all the current projects be considered.

2.3.3.1. PC / Fax / Communications: The installation at Wupperthal, Breevlei and Suurrug has helped communications with the projects tremendously. Others are still using fax machines at remote locations and would benefit from having access to their own facility. NW will prepare a brief on what is involved in terms of finances and procurement arrangements. (NW Action)

2.3.3.2. Storage / Office / Packing Facility: All the projects seem to need a protected facility for the lock up of assets and materials, as well as to keep office equipment, files and other materials in a safe place. Wendy House quotations from the area seem to be charging a very high premium for the installation as well as for transport. A much more favourable price was found at an alternative supplier. RS asked why the projects can’t be capacitated to build these houses themselves. FA suggested that alien vegetation could be used to provide the materials. NW said that Suurrug had motivated to build their own facility, but the building would be the property of the church at the end of IWRM. A Wendy House could be moved. NW said that if someone shows the initiative and can put up Wendy Houses for the projects that need them, this would be good for IWRM. RS said that Doreen February is working with beneficiary products out of Working for Water. NW said that quality and training would cost the project time. GMcD said that they could support the manufacture of cement blocks. GW asked if the project contingency budgets could be used to finance the Wendy Houses on a bulk order. NW added that IWRM signage could be commissioned and put up on the structure to promote the program. RS agreed that the structure could be used to display information about water resource management, and they could look at branding IWRM in this way. RS asked that GW would send him an e-mail about the Wendy Houses (GW Action), and then he would discuss the ideas with Silas and Derek and get back to the group (RS Action)

2.3.3.3. Groundwater with Julian Conrad: NW said that 5 or more projects would be brought together to access capacity building around ground water resource management with JC. After the training the groups would then be engaged in monitoring the ground water supplies, feeding the data back to DWAF. GEOSS is still to be contracted to IWRM by Vendzulu (NW Action with Derek Weston)

2.3.3.4. Organic Production Compliance / Maintenance of Certification: This project involves commissioning the training of all the organic certified projects by Suzie Engelbrecht as per her costing. Criteria for organic certification would be explained and translated into Afrikaans and terms that everyone understands. The project embodies an open door approach, and would provide ongoing support to the projects after the training is completed. Suzie Engelbrecht is however not registered as a call down expert with IWRM yet. NW said that if this project could kick off immediately, about R7,000 would be required. NM said that this project is very important, and need to be done urgently. Suzie Englebrecht is still to be contracted to IWRM by Vendzulu (NW Action with Derek Westo0n) NW added that Suzie would be asked to document everything for later use and reference. SH acknowledged that Suzie Engelbrecht adds tremendous value to their project.

2.4. Planned visit to projects by projects2.4.1. The plans have been put on hold as the next main event will be the Doringbay Expo in Water

Week.2.5. Big Roof project intervention2.5.1. The problems at Bitterfontein are related to accessing the building which is owned by

Spoornet. SJ mentioned a plan to revive the use of facilities such as that one in the whole area as part of Spoornet’s strategy to develop and increase railway services in the region. NW explained that the letter from the project leaders to the Spoornet people was confusing and spoke about access to the buildings not just the roof for rain water harvesting. NW asked that this be taken further and clarity found so that there can be progress (NW Action)


2.6. Breevlei erosion2.6.1. NW reported that Paul Herschleman (Dept of Agriculture – Landcare) is assisting with

developing a project proposal for labour intensive work to repair the erosion. This work will be done under Landcare’s supervision and is to be submitted as an additional project. RS asked that photos are to be taken before and after the work is done. (NW, GP Action)

3. Strand 1 Projects3.1. Report on meeting with Municipalities 07/02/08 and Follow up3.1.1. NM Reported that only the Cederberg municipality was present at the Clanwilliam meeting.

The following Monday, NM phone the municipalities to follow up and while some said they would still be submitting something, there were others who said they needed more clarity. NM proposed that a letter could be addressed to the Municipal Managers, explaining the deadline of the 25th of February, that the process is moving on, and they will miss out if they miss the deadline. RS confirmed that this should be done, saying that the team can’t afford to waste time. The strategy should be to support the projects that are busy and encourage them to take the municipalities to task. The community should benefit from IWRM as an end result.

3.1.2. SJ reported that there is “fatigue” at municipal level, which is visible within the WUA where the municipalities should be represented as signatories and active members. RS said that if we can capacitate people like SH within the WUA, she can put pressure on the municipalities as long as she is informed and understands the roles of all participants. SH reported that they are still waiting for an electrical connection on the land. Since she handed in a letter at the municipality nothing has happened. SJ suggested that letters should be copied to the municipal manager and a copy should be kept by the project as well.

3.1.3. RS reported that Nigel Adams (DWAF – Blue Scorpions) had pledged R5 million a year to be available for 2008 – 2009 and 2009 – 2010 to capacitate projects to be able to report illegal water use to the Blue Scorpions, and to do monitoring to ensure compliance with the water re-allocation reform process.

3.2. WUA Capacity Building Project (S Johnston)3.2.1. SJ reported on the Capacity Building process, teething problems had been sorted out, and

they were entering the second round of workshops with WUAs. A lot of group dynamics had emerged and conflict had been addressed. Training on the ecological component went well and a full report would be distributed to PMG after the meeting (SJ Action)

3.2.2. SJ reported that Glenda Raven and Dana Grobbelaar are involved with the Monitoring and Evaluation component of the program.

3.2.3. The training materials are good and Dana is still busy with some of the Afrikaans translations. These materials will be useful to future applications. WE asked 1) to see the materials that he had not yet seen (WE saw three books to date); 2) what progress is being made with the micro projects. SJ said that he was waiting for the last booklet from Dana.

3.2.4. SJ said that the micro project proposals would be ready by the end of March. WE asked how many groups would be involved. SJ responded that there were 7 in the OD region. RS said that he would then budget for 7 or 8 micro projects. RS asked whether SJ was happy with the materials that had been developed for the training. SJ said that he is pleased with the materials, the monitoring and evaluation would also reveal where changes need to be made.

3.2.5. NM said she was concerned because the materials need to be ready to hand out during training sessions and they are not in evidence. SJ answered that notes and handouts are provided in the training sessions, the materials they are awaiting are actually resources for the WUAs. Sessions are practical and interactive.

3.2.6. NM said that DWAF wants a written progress report on a monthly basis. It is difficult for DWAF to authorize progress payments if there is no report on outputs and deliverables. (SJ Action)

3.2.7. RS said that there are currently 3 DWAF initiatives around WUA capacity building. 1) a national contract out for capacity building; 2) Tony Belcher’s program on Gender in WUAs; 3) OD WUA Capacity Building. RS asked that links would be looked at (SJ Action), and that opportunities to compliment each other should be taken by all three initiatives, Roger would also like the opportunity to test SJ’s work in KZN, would SJ be prepared to go to KZN? SJ replied that he would prefer to build the capacity of a local KZN person to deliver the actual training in that region. RS said that they could meet and discuss this on Friday. (RS and SJ Action)

3.2.8. RS mentioned “GB Solutions” saying that he would get Gabsy to email SJ about putting together a toolkit. (RS Action)

3.2.9. WE said that a train the trainer module could be a natural extension of the current work SJ is doing. All 6 books can also be sent to KZN for their use. SJ said that Glenda Raven is writing the case studies, lessons learned and train the trainer materials.


3.2.10. SJ explained that the training program with the WUAs is best delivered as part of a bigger package where the WUAs get well rounded training in real issues. WE said that it is clear that this is not a once off thing and there will definitely be more in the future. SJ reported that participants frequently requested additional information, which was all being captured by the M&E program, and will come out in project closure during the reflective phase.

3.2.11. FA said that the training needs program should be included within the IWRM Realignment that RS is working on. RS said that NW ran a champions course during IWRM I of which the materials are still available and can be used by service providers, along with DWAF materials. NW confirmed that there are 7 modules that were designed to support WUAs and Water Forums with Administration and Organisation Management and Development. GARC and SPP also have materials that can be used.

3.2.12. RS said that Water Conservation can create jobs, and asked whether there were any opportunities to train some of the participants to be able to do maintenance. NW said that the lesson learned during IWRM I regarding tap and leak repair was that once the project ended and the service was no longer available for free, the consumers did not commission the service as they had to pay.

3.2.13. SH asked that SJ spend more time with the WUA to encourage participation, as there are dormant / non-participative members on board that are counter productive. SJ replied that he would be picking up on non-participative and token members, as this is a target area that needs to be addressed. NM encouraged SH to go ahead and speak in the meetings regardless of the behaviour of other individuals. NM said that this type of behaviour was at the root of the gender project where groups would be told exactly what behaviour excludes and keeps women from participating freely in meetings. RS mentioned an exercise that would be taking place with the ILO (International Labour Organisation) Gender Unit in Clanwilliam to determine the scope of capacity building needs in respect of the available guidelines. HM said that SPP had also done research with the WUAs, and would share the results (HM Action). NM asked that this plan for training to support participation be expedited by IWRM to ensure the ideas are put into practice as soon as possible.

3.3. WWTP Management Project (G McConkey)3.3.1. GMcC provided a report back on the project. Poor attendance at the workshop meeting in

November 2007 (3 officials) is a reflection of how local authority officials are feeling in the areas, especially toward the end of the year. DWAF’s support with the LA students will be helpful. In the course of developing the program, GMcC has seen the potential to do water demand management and water management in urban areas. He explained that it would be worthwhile to do full cycle water treatment, for example in the Matsikama there are 15 sites where information is collected. The idea is to collect the information, photos of assets and enter the information into the system, this supports the municipality in compliance to the Municipal Financial Management Act Asset Management requirements, allowing for pro-active asset management. The water demand module allows the user to view the whole demand of the area, work out what % will go to waste, and do development modeling. The system supports problem identification, the municipality would still be responsible to address problems, and province will be responsible to ensure that the problems are addressed.

3.3.1.1. RS asked about the next steps, what needs to happen in order for the system to stat working as it should in the region? GMcC said that there is a regulatory person in office in DWAF. The training materials are available (SETA certification is outstanding, materials were submitted for certification, but no response yet).

3.3.1.2. RS requested a short report on the key points related to this project (GMcC Action)3.3.1.3. GMcC said that he had discussed the project with WE on how to proceed with the

rollout, RS asked what the IWRM side could do to support the project (GMcC Action)3.3.1.4. NM Thanked GMcC for the report back and requested a written monthly report to be

distributed as soon as possible (GMcC Action)3.4. Sandveld Project (J Conrad)3.4.1. NM reported that the draft framework report is ready and a meeting is planned for 7 March

with stakeholders in the Sandveld so that the finalized Framework document should be ready by the end of March. NM asked that NW assist her in inviting the projects based in the Sandveld to the meeting planned for 7 March (NW and NM Action)

3.4.2. NM explained that IWRM could fund the Framework project, as well as the Water Management Plan project.

3.5. PGDS Alignment Project3.5.1. WE reported that a meeting is planned for 2 – 3 weeks hence. Progress is quite good. RS

confirmed with WE that the information on the PGDS had been communicated to Kalinga in Pretoria.


3.5.2. NM requested a written report from the PGDS project leaders. (WE Action)3.6. Proposals received so far from the Municipalities3.6.1. NM mentioned the letter that she would write to the municipal managers to explain if they

miss the 25 February deadline, they will miss out.3.6.2. NW said that Rolan Johannesen of the Cederberg municipality has discussed a project

proposal wherein the top 20 water users are identified from their billing information, and are then involved in visits, water audits, and monitoring over a 20 year period. A budget could be put together to subsidise the installation of water saving devices, and to retrofit these among these top 20 users.

3.6.3. GMcC said that he would mention to Roland that the WWTP system would enable the capture of data to support such a project.

3.6.4. WE said that Roland is running out of time for proposal submissions, and NW is to prompt him further (NW Action)

3.6.5. NW asked whether someone outside the municipality could drive the project as a service to the municipality. WE replied that this arrangement would have to be endorsed by the municipality. RS said that usually this sort of endorsement waits for Exco decision and causes untenable delays. WE said that IWRM would pay the Municipality, they would appoint the consultant or service provider.

3.6.6. RS said that it needs to be certain that the projects can kick off and complete, we will not support things that cannot be completed.

3.7. Planned workshop with Municipalities3.7.1. This point had been covered in preceding discussion3.8. Projects under negotiation (New Projects)3.8.1. This point had been covered in preceding discussion

4. Water Week / Follow Up Conference4.1. IWRM Expo4.1.1. Day 1 would consist of the Expo with visits from School groups and all projects present to

discuss their projects with scholars and others4.1.2. Day 2 would consist of a conference with stakeholders and projects to see how to take IWRM

Extension forward, clarify roles and support.4.1.2.1. Municipalities, Government Departments, Connie September, Organised Agriculture,

NAFU, WUAs should be engaged in active discussion on IWRM, Poverty and Gender4.2. Theme4.2.1. IWRM, Poverty Alleviation, Gender4.3. Invites – Portfolio Committee, Funders, Municipalities, WUAs, Schools and Projects4.3.1. RS, NW and NM to ensure invitations are produced and sent out by 28 February 2008. (NM,

RS, NW Action)4.3.2. Invitation list:4.3.2.1. Portfolio Committee on Water4.3.2.2. MP’s4.3.2.3. Potential Funders (Vodacom, KaapAgri)4.3.2.4. Projects4.3.2.5. KZN IWRM Team and Projects4.3.2.6. North West IWRM Team and Projects4.3.2.7. Schools4.3.2.8. Municipalities4.3.2.9. DWAF Head Office4.3.2.10. Government Departments4.3.2.11. SALGA, NAFU4.3.2.12. SPP, GARC and other IWRM Partners (PMG)4.4. Accommodation & Catering4.4.1. 56 Beds booked at Strandfontein Chalets for the 17th and 18th of March4.4.2. 24 beds booked at the Christelike Studente Vereeniging (CSV) for the 17th and 18th of March4.4.3. Accommodation alternatives at the local guest houses etc will be sent out with invitations (GW

Action)4.4.4. CSV also provided a quote for the catering. Additional quotes are needed (GW Action)4.4.5. Numbers and financing needed to be finalized:4.4.5.1. 80 people from the projects4.4.5.2. DWAF to pay for Accommodation & Catering4.5. Transport


4.5.1. 6 Pavis vehicles could be secured. DWAF only has one driver so others would have to be arranged. Trailers could also be hired.

4.5.2. DWAF to pay for Transport arrangements 4.6. Programme4.6.1. RS will assist with the programme; possibilities that are being considered include:4.6.1.1. IWRM to Date – Presentation4.6.1.2. Memorandum of Understanding – SPP, GARC4.6.1.3. Case Studies – Presentation4.6.1.4. Declaration – Collective decision facilitated and concluded4.7. Exhibition, Posters, Handouts, T-Shirts?4.7.1. Banners still to be done: 1) IWRM, 2) Water Conservation, 3) Water Quality Management

(NW Action)4.7.2. DWAF posters should be made available for the Expo (NM Action)4.7.3. DWAF Handouts should be prepared for the school visits (NM Action)4.7.3.1. Water Quality4.7.3.2. WASH4.7.4. IWRM Handout (Face cloths and Soaps OR Bandanas OR Mugs) (NW Action)

5. General5.1. International IWRM Conference 10-12 March 20085.1.1. RS reported that a parallel session is being arranged for DWAF; Kalinga booked 2 hour

session. 5.1.2. They are keen on the exhibition and the pop-ups and materials. RS requested a full set of

pop-ups to be produced for Gauteng. (NW Action)5.1.3. Water Resources Council (WRC) also asked that project leaders be present at the conference

for interviews. (NW Action)5.2. National Summit5.2.1. Discussed as an opportunity to promote work internationally and to include information from

other areas5.3. Training Materials being developed in KZN for Community Resource Centres (Water, Hygiene,

Health, IWRM)5.3.1. RS reported on these materials5.3.2. RS requested the group to look at the materials to see whether it is viable to translate them

into Afrikaans for the OD audience. (All Action)5.4. Province of Piemont & Telarad Training Program5.4.1. Representatives from Piemont Regional Government are involved with a university exchange

program and would sponsor people from South Africa to attend the Slow Food Biennial Event in Terramadré with the ILO and FAO present. RS will send the information regarding this opportunity out shortly (RS Action)

6. Close6.1. The meeting was closed at 16:25 pm

Important Dates for Period to end July 2008:

Date Meeting Venue and Time

6 March 2008 (to be confirmed) PMG (Operational Meeting) Belville, 9 – 12 am11 -12 March 2008 IWRM Conference Cape Town CTICC13 March 2008 National PMG Belville, 9 – 12 am

To be confirmed17 March 2008 National Water Summit Pretoria17 – 20 March 2008 WATER WEEK Nation - wide18 March 2008 WATER WEEK IWRM Expo Doringbaai, 9 – 4 pm


19 March 2008 IWRM, Gender and Poverty Alleviation Re-Alignment

Conference

Doringbaai, 9 – 4 pm

3 April 2008 (to be confirmed) PMG (Operational Meeting) Belville, 9 – 12 am8 May 2008 (to be confirmed) PMG (Quarterly Meeting) Belville, 9 am – 1 pm5 June 2008 (to be confirmed) PMG (Operational Meeting) Belville, 9 – 12 am3 July 2008 (to be confirmed) PMG (Operational Meeting) Belville, 9 – 12 am

Minutes compiled by Gisela [email protected]

Contact: 023 347 0336083 338 1885

21 January 2008




APPENDIX A: IWRM Strand 3 Project Watershed Status Report


APPENDIX B: IWRM Strand 3 Project Financial Up To Date Status Report 21 February 2008


APPENDIX C: IWRM Strand 3 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Field Worker Tick Sheets presented as “Traffic Light”


APPENDIX C: IWRM Strand 3 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Field Worker Tick Sheets presented as “Traffic Light” (Continued)


APPENDIX D: IWRM Strand 3 Project Balanced Scorecards received in January and February 2008

Lamatzicare Women’s Food Garden Project (VanRhynsdorp):

Internal / Operational Impact / ResultsPlanning and Meetings B Farm Production BFinancial Management B Income from Harvest CCo-operation (Members) A Infrastructure BAttendance (Training) A Irrigation BAdministration B Planting C

Inputs External / PartnersIWRM Support A Local Authority BFinancial A SPP ATraining A Community CCommunication A Dept Agric AVisits : SPP A Commercial Farmers B

IWRM GOALSWater Management A Empowerment A

Vukani Makhosikazi Women’s Food Garden Project (Lamberts Bay):

Internal / Operational Impact / ResultsPlanning and Meetings B Home of Love CSoil preparation A Community BPlanting Seedlings A Unemployment BFertilising / Harvet A Youth CMarketing B HIV B

Inputs External / PartnersIWRM Support A Local Authority CAgric B West Coast DM BGARC A Joos Engelbrecht ASPP A Dept Agric BSuzy Engelbrecht A GARC A

IWRM GOALSWater Management A

All the Balanced Scorecards have been captured and will be presented in the full M&E Report


APPENDIX E: IWRM Strand 3 Project Proposals – List by N Wullschleger (Updated to include 25 February 2008 Deadline for submissions)

IWRM II Olifants-Doorn Strand 3 Project Budget Estimates (2007/8; 2008/9; 2009/10)

Current Projects (with extensions)

Water UA / Forum NGO / CBO / WUA / WMF / Business / Individual

Project Name 2007 / 2008 Budget 2008 / 2009 Budget 2009 / 2010 Budget

Ceder-Doorn Wupperthal Organic Emerging Farmer Association

Organic Vegetable Production - Irrigation

R 234,205.18 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Ceder-Doorn Breevlei Agriculture Development Forum

Community Organic Project - Rooibos tea nursery and organic vegetables for baby food

R 180,730.20 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Ceder-Doorn Suurug Agriculture Development Forum

Community Organic Farming Project, Rooibos tea nursery and organic baby food

R 145,287.90 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Witzenberg Agter Witzenberg Valley Community Forum

Water awareness, tap and leak repair and water quality monitoring

R 81,724.31 R 100,000.00 N/A

Koue Bokkeveld / Ceres Karoo

Swartruggens Conservancy

Artesian borehole rehabilitation, groundwater and climate change monitoring and awareness

R 175,727.88 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Upper Olifants Rastafarian Emerging Farmer Association

Agricultural Development for Poverty Relief

R 163,542.96 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Upper Olifants Petersfield Youth Emerging Farmer Association (to be replaced by Ludicks Group)

R 141,636.00

Upper Olifants Jaarsvlei Emerging Farmer Association

R 150,738.00

Middle Olifants Cederberg Emerging Farmers Forum

Capacity building for effective participation in Water Management Institutions

R 209,124.00 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Middle Olifants Masakhane Emerging Farmers

Ermering Farmer testing Water Allocation Reform in the Jan Dissels River

R 150,000.00 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Middle Olifants Clanwilliam Emerging Farmer Association

Agricultural Development for Poverty Relief

R 284,137.00 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Lower Olifants River Doringbaai Emerging Farmers Association / MPRC

Doringbaai MPRC Sustainable Food Security & IWRM

R 159,606.90 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Lower Olifants River Matzikama Development Services / Ebenhaeser Community Association

Ebenhaeser Alien Invasive Vegetation Clearining

R 155,522.10 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Lower Olifants River Ebenhaeser Multi-purpose Resources Centre

Ebenhaeser Wetland Awareness

R 174,336.60 N/A (Project Closed) N/A (Project Closed)


APPENDIX E: IWRM Strand 3 Project Proposals – List by N Wullschleger (Updated to include 25 February 2008 Deadline for submissions) Continued …



Lower Olifants River Lutzville Emerging Farmers Association

Emerging farmer testing water allocation reform LORWUA and re-use winery water

R 99,111.90 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Lower Olifants River Vredendal Samewerk Boere (VSB)

Emerging farmer testing water allocation reform LORWUA

R 151,598.84 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Sandveld Vukani Makhosikhazi Womens Food Garden

Agricultural Development for Food Security

R 166,872.96 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Hantam Loeriesfontein Emerging Farmer Association

Upgrading of stock farming water supply

R 75,742.80 R 138,700.00 R 75,000.00

Nama Karoo Vanrhynsdorp Emerging Farmer Association

Emerging farmer support - reuse waste water for fodder

R 185,258.00 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Nama Karoo Lamatzicare Womens Emerging Farmer Association

Food Security & poverty eradication

R 62,713.01 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

Suid Namakwaland Bitterfontein Advice & Development Office

Big Roof Projects R 166,072.10 R 150,000.00 R 75,000.00

R 3,313,688.64 R 2,638,700.00 R 1,275,000.00

Projects unsuccessful first round in 2007



Ceder-Doorn Langbome Emerging Farmer Association

Langebome Wupperthal Emerging Farmers

N/A R 250,000.00 R 75,000.00

Ceder-Doorn Beukeskraal Emerging Farmer Association

Beukeskraal Wupperthal Emerging Farmers

N/A R 250,000.00 R 75,000.00

Koue Bokkeveld Koue Bokkeveld Waste Recycling Project

Waste recycling, environemental clean-up, & water conservation project

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Koue Bokkeveld Koue Bokkeveld Water Conservation Project

N/A

Koue Bokkeveld Koue Bokkeveld Environmental Awareness Project

N/A

Lower Olifants River Vredendal North Emerging Farmer Association

Broiler Chicken Project N/A N/A (Cancelled) N/A

R 750,000.00 R 300,000.00



New Strand 3 Projects



Ceder-Doorn Wupperthal Organic Emerging Farmer Association

Organic Food processing facility

N/A R 250,000.00 N/A

Ceder-Doorn Eselbank Wupperthal Groundwater & Food Security

N/A R 230,000.00 R 150,000.00

Ceder-Doorn Nie Plaas Wupperthal Groundwater & Food Security

N/A R 341,000.00 R 150,000.00

Ceder-Doorn Jagvlak Wolfkloof Boerdery Trust

Hoodia Doring River N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00


Soil erosion counter-measures protecting water course

N/A R 100,000.00 N/A


Rooibos Tea processing facility

N/A R 250,000.00 N/A

Upper Olifants Eureka Emerging Farmer Association

Food Security Elandskloof

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Lower Olifants River DORCAS Food Gardens

Food Securirty Vredendal

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Lower Olifants River Klawer Advice Office Food Security Project for people with disabilities

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Lower Olifants River PM Weskus Women Group

Snail project N/A R 88,500.00 R 75,000.00

Lower Olifants River Ebenhaeser Caskor Emerging Farmer Project

Lucern and organic vegetable farming

N/A R 225,216.00 R 150,000.00

Lower Olifants River Vredendal North Emerging Farmer Association / Olifants River Black Economic Empowerment Forum

Optimum use of backwash water from the water treatment plant in Vredendal North

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Sandveld Graafwater Youth & Culture Organisation

Treated water for recreation at Jakkalsrivier

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Sandveld Lukanyo Agricultural Project

Lukanyo Agricultural Project

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

Sandveld Graafwater Advice & Development Organisation

Clearing alien invasive plantsin the Jakkals River from Graafwater to Lamberts Bay

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

OD WMA GARC Multi-purpose fruit trees at community projects throught Olifants-Doorn

N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

OD WMA SPP / Matzikama RPF Forum


N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

OD WMA SPP / Hantam RPF Forum


N/A R 250,000.00 R 150,000.00

R 4,234,716.00 R 2,175,000.00



Budget Planning for Olifants Doorn Strand 3 Projects 2007/8; 2008/9; 2009/10

2007 / 2008 Budget 2008 / 2009 Budget 2009 / 2010 Budget

R 3,313,688.64 R 7,623,416.00 R 3,750,000.00

Total Budget2007 - 2010 R 14,687,104.64


Documents

IWRM II Olifants / Doorn – Strand 3 Projects Project ... doc/od_pmg_minutes/20080220_OD_PMG… · 3.1. Report on meeting with Municipalities 07/02/08 and Follow up 3.2. WUA Capacity