RAPID ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

RAPID ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

USAID REFRESH

Prepared for: USAID

Cooperative Agreement #: 72061219CA00008

Prepared by: Pact, Inc, 1828 L St, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036

ii

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 7 ROCA in fisheries context ...................................................................................................................... 7

OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 7

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................. 8 A. Stewardship Planning & Coordination .......................................................................................... 8 B. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting & Learning .......................................................................... 10 C. Resources and Resource Mobilization ......................................................................................... 12 D. Service Delivery- Fisheries ........................................................................................................... 14 E. Service Delivery- Cross Cutting .................................................................................................... 15

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................16

RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 SECTION A – Stewardship, Planning & Coordination ...................................................................... 19 SECTION B – Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning ..................................................... 22 SECTION C- Resources and Resource Mobilization ......................................................................... 24 SECTION D – Service Delivery (Fisheries) ........................................................................................ 26 SECTION E – Service Delivery (Cross-cutting) ................................................................................. 29

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 31 Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool ....................................................................... 31

iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CAS Catch Assessment System

CSP Capacity Solutions Platform

BVC Beach Village Committee

COVID Corona Virus Disease

DAECC District Agriculture Extension Coordination Committee

DANRSC District Agriculture Resources Service Committee

DC District Council

DDP District Development Plan

DEC District Executive Committee

DFO District Fisheries Office

DoF Department of Fisheries

EBFM Ecosystems Based Fisheries Management Assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FISH Fisheries Integration of Society and Habitats

FRS Fisheries Research Station

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit

LFMA Local Fisheries Management Authorities

NFACS National Fisheries Aquaculture Communication Strategy

ORT Other Recurrent Transactions

PFM Participatory Fisheries Management

REFRESH Restoring Fisheries for Sustainable Livelihoods in Lake Malawi

ROCA Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment

SEP Socio Economic Profile

URI University of Rhode Island

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VDC Village Development Committee

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Performance of all DFOs in stewardship, planning and coordination ............................................... 9 Table 2: Performance of all DFOs in Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning ............................... 11 Table 3: Performance of all DFOs in Resources and Resource Mobilization ................................................. 13 Table 4: Performance of each District Fisheries office in Service delivery on fisheries ................................ 15 Table 5: Performance of delivery on cross cutting issues ................................................................................ 16

List of Figures

Figure 1: Average scores of all DFOs in stewardship, planning and coordination .......................................... 8 Figure 2: Average scores of all DFOs in Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning ......................... 10 Figure 3: Average scores of all DFOs in Resources and Resource Mobilization ............................................ 12 Figure 4: Average scores of all DFOs in Service delivery on fisheries ............................................................ 14 Figure 5: Average scores of all DFOs in service delivery of cross cutting activities ....................................... 16

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The main aim of the study was to better understand the capacity of 8 targeted districts of Mangochi, Dedza, Salima, Nkhotakota, Nkhata Bay, Likoma, Rumphi and Karonga to implement EBFM activities. DoF has been implementing Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) in Lake Malawi and other water bodies since 1993 where resource users participate in the management of the fisheries resources. However, despite government efforts to decentralize fisheries management activities fish stocks especially chambo and other big species in Lake Malawi have declined at an alarming rate and non-compliance to fisheries regulations has increased.

The Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment (ROCA) was used to assess the implementation of EBFM at the eight lakeshore DFO offices The ROCA assessed the implementation of EBFM based on 5 performance domains as follows:

Stewardship, planning and co-ordination – this involves overseeing and guiding the whole District Fisheries Office in order to influence the DC to support the fisheries sector and adopt inclusively to plan its own programmes

Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning – a process of tracking activities, assessing whether objectives of the programme are achieved, sharing utilization of documented information.

Resources and resource mobilization – emphasizes the ability of the District Fisheries Office to raise and efficiently utilize resources to successfully deliver its programme to oversee the successful implementation of successful EBFM practices.

Service delivery – fisheries – this involves the way inputs and services are organized and managed to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time.

Service delivery – cross cutting – examines the way essential cross cutting input services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time

A qualitative structured tool was used for data collection and each domain had a statement of excellence with graded-criteria responses ranging from 1-4 with 1 as lowest and 4 highest. Data was then entered into MS excel for analysis and results were captured in Pact CSP platform for storage and further reference.

The five performance domains of this ROCA have 6 criteria each except Service delivery (cross-cutting) which has 3 criteria. The averages for each section are A-1.68, B-1.53 C-1.31, D-1.41 and E-1 (3 criteria only). The average for all 27 criteria is 1.45 with a total score of 37.9 from a possible total of 108 (35%). A score of 1 is no activity at all for each criteria which means the current situation demonstrates poor performing Districts when rated against the prescribed criteria. Three criteria score level 3 and a level 4 is awarded to one District for the DDP chapter which is encouraging and indicates improvement is possible. The REFRESH projects aims to raise the average score greater than 2 by the mid-term and 2.5 by the end of the project including at least one quarter of the criteria scoring a 3. The following paragraphs summarize the performance domains, and the capacity building activities REFRESH will undertake over the coming 4 years of the project to improve performance as measured by the 27 statements of excellence (criteria)

On stewardship, planning and co-ordination, the study revealed that 100% of the DFOs have work plans that lack EBFM activities. Many of the existing work plans focused on aquaculture and some enforcement. In order to support implementation of EBFM, REFRESH will conduct joint work planning with all DFOs to ensure that they have a comprehensive work plan that has up to 50% or more of the activities in the work plan related to EBFM. The collaboration with DoF District offices will support better coordination with councils and the USAD funded project LGAP.

On monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning, the study reveals that 88% of the DC designated M&E officers do not support fisheries offices and that all DFOs lack training and skills in data and information handling. REFRESH will ensure that the DC M&E Officer incorporates fisheries activities in the District M&E plans by incorporating the M&E officers in the implementation of fisheries activities and REFRESH trainings so as to enhance the officers understanding of the fisheries sector. Data management will improve

6

once the project rolls out a new tablet based MTF system across all Districts. Scientific information from fisheries surveys will also be channeled to DFO and Councils

On resource mobilization, 63% of the DFOs which translates to 5 out of 8 DFOs have no adequate funding to deliver EBFM activities while 37% which is 3 out of 8 of the DFOs have less than half of the required budget to deliver their activities. In the same domain, 100% which is all the DFO offices do not independently mobilize resources on their own to implement activities. REFRESH will work with the DCs in the targeted districts to identify sustainable revenue streams to support implementation of EBFM.

On service delivery – fisheries, 75% of the BVCs from the 7 targeted BVCs excluding Mangochi do not promote formation and management of sanctuaries. All the DFO offices do not have workplans that reflect EBFM and their communication plans are not fully aligned to the NFACS. On securing management agreements through signing of management agreements between the Director of Fisheries and the LFMAs, apart from Mangochi the 7 targeted districts do not have management agreements. REFRESH will work with all DFOs and DoF for their sub-FAs to secure user rights through signing of management agreements with the Director of Fisheries. REFRESH will also work with DFOs and District Information Officers to sensitize them on the NFACS and the implementation of integrated EBFM plans aligned to NFACS.

On service delivery – cross-cutting, all DFO offices do not have gender and youth development strategies and do not have programmes that promote alternative livelihoods among fishing communities. REFRESH will work with the gender officer and other relevant stakeholders e.g. social welfare to make sure all DFOs have gender and youth development strategies and that they are implementing EBFM with gender and youth lens. The project through strategic approach 4 will support the DFOs in promoting alternative livelihoods among fishing communities.

7

INTRODUCTION Restoring Fisheries for Sustainable Livelihoods in Lake Malawi (REFRESH) is a five-year (2019–2024) project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Malawi and implemented by a Pact-led consortium that includes core partners University of Rhode Island (URI) and TechnoServe and local partners. REFRESH gives fisheries dependent populations along Lake Malawi an equal opportunity to realize the potential of a sustainably managed lake by integrating political, biological, ecological, and socioeconomic considerations to sustain the composition, structure, and functions of the lake ecosystem. To do this, the project strengthens fisheries governance and the regulatory framework, improves, and further decentralizes ecosystem-based fisheries management, and catalyzes and supports commercialization of conservation enterprises to counter unsustainable fishing.

The Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment (ROCA) is a participatory tool that is used to access the performance of an institution or entity to better understand its landscape, functions and gaps that exist. The tool outlines best practices for use in the context and allows people engaged to go through a learning process through which an action plan is formulated and implemented. ROCA was created by Pact Nigeria for use among local government partners within a health intervention called Strengthening Accountability & Quality Improvement Project (SAQIP) designed to develop the capacity of the State Primary Health Care Development Agency (SPHCDA) and its associated Local Government Authority (LGA) structures. ROCA is based on Pact’s Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA), a tool used to help organizations assess their strengths and weaknesses, clarify their vision, plan for success, and ultimately take greater ownership over their future.

The Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment has three key functions:

Provide a framework that facilitates individual reflections about an organization’s performance

Help stakeholders identify shared concerns and priority actions

Provide common language to discuss difficult organizational issues and focuses the conversation on the questions within the tool rather than options of specific individuals

ROCA in fisheries context REFRESH together with the Department of Fisheries are implementing Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) project along the shores of Lake Malawi (8 lakeshore districts). DoF over the past years has been implementing Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) where resource users are an important part in fisheries management decision making. This allows the resource users to own management options through full involvement and engagement of different key players in PFM at national and local levels. Implementation of PFM activities is facilitated by District Fisheries Officers who are situated at the District Council level and extension workers based at the community level to work with the fishing communities on sustainable management of fisheries resources. To track progress during implementation of REFRESH project, a ROCA baseline study was conducted to have better understanding on the status of EBFM activities at DFOs offices and where relevant determine how government, REFRESH and partner projects may improve the operational management of the district offices.

In rolling out participatory ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), REFRESH is working with decentralized structures at district councils (DCs) which include: District Fisheries Offices (DFOs), District Agriculture Extension Coordination Committees (DAECC), District Agriculture and Natural Resources Service Committees (DANRSC) and other relevant committees. One of REFRESH key results is strengthen DoF’s capacity to advance decentralized EBFM and to understand the status of EBFM. The survey therefore focused on activities at DFO offices.

OBJECTIVE The main objective of the study was to assess the performance of district fisheries offices in Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) using four domains: (i) stewardship, planning and coordination, (ii) monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning, (iii) resources and resource mobilization, (iv) service delivery - fisheries, and (v) service delivery – crosscutting issues. The study identified capacity development

8

gaps in District Fisheries Offices in these areas with an aim of singling out areas to provide support to address the gaps.

METHODOLOGY The assessment was conducted in all 8 REFRESH-implementing districts namely Mangochi, Dedza, Salima, Nkhotakota, Nkhata Bay, Likoma, Rumphi and Karonga. However, the research team could not travel to Likoma due to non-availability of transportation from the mainland to the island. Therefore, a REFRESH Technician was tasked to collect data in the respective district.

A qualitative structured tool was used for data collection. Each of the 5 ROCA domains had a statement of excellence which was assessed through a set of sub-questions with graded-criteria responses ranging from 1 to 4. One stands for lowest level of achievement and is self-reported without requiring any evidence while 4 stands for the highest/platinum level of achievement on a particular performance area. The tool was administered to DFOs who in some instances were in the company of Assistant DFOs. The tool was sent in advance to DFOs with instructions on how to complete it and on the day of data collection, discussions were held on how the DFOs arrived at the scores and provided relevant evidence to the facilitators.

Data was entered into MS Excel for analysis. Mean scores for all domains were calculated and used for reporting. Further results were captured in Pact’s CSP platform for storage and trend analysis in subsequent years.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Stewardship Planning & Coordination

The domain involves overseeing and guiding the whole District Fisheries Office in order to influence the DC to support the fisheries sector and adopt inclusivity to plan its own programmes.

Figure 1: Average scores of all DFOs in stewardship, planning and coordination

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Mangochi Dedza Salima Nkhotakota Nkhatabay Rumphi Karonga Likoma

Stewardship Planning & Coordination

Stewardship, Planning & Coordination Average

9

Score

1 2 3 4

Statement of Excellence No. of districts

% No. of districts

% No. of districts

% No. of districts

%

Our District Fisheries Office always attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries

3 37% 5 63% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office regularly coordinates meetings with fisheries related projects within the District.

5 63% 3 37% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District office holds monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff.

5 63% 2 24% 1 13% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office ensures the functionality of Beach Village Communities (BVC)

0 0% 7 88% 1 12% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has a comprehensive EBFM workplan.

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has contribution to the District Development Plans (DDP).

0 0% 5 63% 2 24% 1 13%

Table 1: Performance of all DFOs in stewardship, planning and coordination

Figure 1, with an average score of 1.7 for the domain, shows that in all districts the District Fisheries office provides little guidance on fisheries to the district council and fisheries stakeholders. This is determined by the frequency of DFOs attending meetings at the DCs office to report on fisheries issues. As evidently seen, the results in Table 1 show that 63% of DFOs scored themselves on level 2, which entails that they attend meetings at DC level to report on fisheries up to 4 times a year, and they were able to show the facilitators written meeting minutes as evidence. Meanwhile, 37% of the DFOs scored themselves on level 1, and had no written reports available to show that they attend these meetings. Under sub-question 2 of the domain finds out if DFOs conducts coordination and networking meetings with partners implementing fisheries related projects. The findings reveal that 63% of the DFO who scored on level 1, show that DFOs do not conduct coordination meetings with fisheries-related projects within the DC. An example was in Mangochi where despite having two major fisheries projects (FISH and FiRM) in the last 5 years there was no evidence to show that the DFO holds any coordination meeting with fisheries related projects. A similar result was obtained for Rumphi District which is implementing the GIZ- funded aquaculture value chain project and the AfDB funded sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development and watershed management project. Under the same domain, at least 37% of the 8 DFOs show that they conduct coordination meetings at least once in a year as they were evident coordination meeting reports to support the score. Nevertheless, it was observed that often the projects are the ones who organize these planning meetings with the DFO. Sub-question 3 under domain 1, focuses on DFOs holding monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff. Table 1 shows that the majority of DFOs lacks strategic planning process to fully support the extension workers implement fisheries activities with only 13% of the DFOs scoring level 2, which details that they hold monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff and 24% of the DFO holds up to 4 monthly meetings per year while 63% of the DFO does not hold monthly meetings as there were no monthly meeting minutes presented to the team. Some of the reasons that influenced such low scores was the unavailability of resources for the DFOs to hold these meetings as they are a lot of resources required to hold such meeting such as transport refunds for the technicians from their field sites to the district office.

10

Meanwhile under the same sub-question, 37% of the DFOs scored a level 2 which shows that they manage to hold these technical and management meetings by sorely relying on ORT for resources. Sub-question 4, unveils the support the DFOs provide to BVCs by making sure these BVCs are fully functional. In this regard, the subject focuses on number of visits the extension workers make to support the BVCs, activity reports for the BVCs and finally how actively the BVC performs its duties. Table 1 shows that 88% of the 8 DFOs scored level 2 which explains that there is limited support from the extension workers to the BVCs in supporting their activities as evidence showed that the extension workers visit the BVCs only up to 4 times a year. The DFOs cited that there is often lack of resources, mobility and capacity building which makes it hard for the DFO to support all the BVCs which results in some or most of the BVCs being inactive in carrying out fisheries activities. Meanwhile, 12% of the DFOs show that they support BVCs activities up to 8 times a year through trainings and awareness campaign, radio call in programs. Sub-question 5 focuses on finding out if DFOs have a comprehensive EBFM work plans. Based on the results presented in Table 1, all 8 DFOs had a score of 1, which shows that none of the DFOs have a comprehensive EBFM work plan. The DFOs were able to present a work plan to the team but these work plans lacked EBFM activities such as LFMAs capacity building, BVCs enforcing regulations, management of key breeding areas, self-financing mechanisms, sharing of catch data collected to LFMAs, promotion of exchange visits. Many of the existing work plans focused on aquaculture and some enforcement. The DFOs explain they are not able to implement many of their fisheries activities planned for the year due to very limited funds that they receive through Other Recurrent transactions (ORT) from district Council. Finally, sub-question 6 focuses on the contributions the DFO makes in formulation of District Development Plans and making sure fisheries issues are well articulated and presented. In table 1, 63% of the DFOs scored level 2, which shows that they have minimal contribution to the formulation of the District Development Plans as they were able to present a drafted SEP. 24% of the DFOs scored a level 3, as they were able to present a finalized SEP document. One challenge that was cited by most of the DFOs is that finalization of these SEPs and DDPs were delayed due to Covis-19 pandemic. Mangochi District had a score of 4 under this domain because the DFO was able to present a final document of DDP with fisheries issues presented as they explained they received support from the FISH project in finalizing this process.

B. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting & Learning

This section refers to the process of tracking activities, assessing whether objectives of the program are achieved, sharing and utilization of documented information.

Figure 2: Average scores of all DFOs in Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning

Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning Average

11

Scores

1 2 3 4

Statement of Excellence No. of groups

% No. of groups

% No. of groups

% No. of groups

%

Our District Fisheries office conducts a needs assessment with LFMAs before developing a work plan

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District office has a designated M&E officer to supports the office with M&E tasks.

7 88% 1 12% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office maintains good quality data storage systems.

0 0% 6 75% 2 25% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office collects data and does not have data backlog of more than one month

0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office always uses data for planning (at all stages of program cycle) and decision making.

0 0% 7 88% 1 12% 0 0%

Our District office maintains gender disaggregated data

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table 2: Performance of all DFOs in Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning

Figure 2 shows overall results of how each DFO in all 8 respective districts performed under this domain which focuses on monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Sub-question 1 of the domain focuses on DFOs being able to conduct a needs assessment research with LFMAs before developing a work plan. Table 2 shows that all 8 DFOs (100%) do not conduct a needs assessment before developing a work plan as there was no evident report on needs assessment. All the DFOs expressed concern that they lacked funds or resources to carry out such an activity.

Sub-question 2 focuses on level of support on M&E activities provided by the District Council M&E officer to the DFOs. Table 2 shows that 88% which are 7 out of the 8 DFOs do not receive support from the District Councils M&E officer. The DFOs showed concerns that the District Council M&E officers do not take interest in fisheries activities, they do not make related field visits nor work with the DFOs on data collection or other M&E tasks. The District Council M&E officer only provides the DFOs with templates for planning and reporting. The DFOs submits work plan and reports but do not get support to monitor or evaluate progress from the District Officers M&E officer. Only 12% scored at level 2, which showed that the District Council M&E officers provide minimal support to the DFOs for at least 3 months in a year, as the DFOs were able to shows some M&E reports as evidence of the support provided.

Sub-question 3 focuses on DFOs maintaining good quality data and data storage. With reference to table 3, 75% of the DFOs scored at level 2, which reveals that DFOs have an ad hoc topic driven paper-based data storage system which further reveals that the filing system is not fit for purpose, not secured and the data that is available is difficult to retrieve. Meanwhile, 25% of the DFOs, which is 2 DFOs, scored at level 3 showing that they maintain paper-based and partial electronic data storage system with good filing system, secured and easy to retrieval. There were evident reports on CAS data which is available online as they are shared to Monkey Bay Fisheries Research Station (MBFRS). The DFOs reported such a low score as they

12

expressed that they lack computers for storing data as most of them use personal laptops which are not entirely available to all the staff in the office. One of the districts that scored level 3 was Mangochi as the DFO maintains paper-based and partial electronic data storage system as he was provided by computers supported by the previous FISH project and currently supported by FAO.

Sub-question 4, focuses on data collection and data backlog. Table 3 reveals that all 8 DFOs scored at level 2, which reveals that they have a data backlog of 1 to 3 months and have gaps in data processing. The data is collected by extension workers from the respective district fisheries offices and data processing is done by MBFRS. DFOs expressed concern that lack of resources, staff and poor accessibility to some sites hinder timely processing of data.

Sub-question 5, focuses on usage of the collected data for planning and decision making. Table 2 shows that only 1 DFO out of the 8 scored 3 which shows that data is used at initial planning and decision-making stages but not used for program improvement. Meanwhile, 88% of the DFOs scored level 2, that further explains that though CAS data is available, it is not used for planning and decision making due to lack of resources in implementing activities that the data entails. Planning and decision based on data collected is made at central level.

Sub-question 6 entails maintaining gender segregated data. All 8 DFOs scored at level 1, which shows that they do not disaggregate their data by gender. This is because the department’s data collection form/template does not have a gender segregation section/column.

With and average score of 1.6 for the domain shows that there is a lack of a strong and comprehensive M&E system and lack of regular monitoring and reporting of activities due to lack of resources.

C. Resources and Resource Mobilization

This section emphasizes on the ability of the District Fisheries Office to raise and efficiently utilize resources to successfully deliver its program to oversee the successful implementation of sustainable EBFM practices.

Figure 3: Average scores of all DFOs in Resources and Resource Mobilization

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Resources and Resource Mobilization

Resources and Resource mobilization Average

13

Score

1 2 3 4


% No. of groups

% No. of groups

% No. of groups

%

Our District Fisheries Office has adequately funded budget to deliver EBFM activities.

5 63% 3 37% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has vehicles to sufficiently implement its program

6 75% 2 25% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has enough motorcycles for its extension staff to adequately implement its work plan/program

6 75% 0 0% 2 25% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office had adequate funds from government sources to run and maintain the motorcycles

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has all positions filled.

2 25% 6 75% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office independently mobilizes resources

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table 3: Performance of all DFOs in Resources and Resource Mobilization

The domain focuses on the ability of the DFOs to raise and utilize resources and successfully deliver its programs. Results for this domain are displayed in figure 3 and table 3. Under sub-question 1 of this domain, DFOs are asked if they have adequate budgeted funds available to deliver EBFM activities. The results show that 63% which is 5 out of 8 DFOs scored level 1, which means services and programming are severely compromise due to lack of adequate funds. Only 37% of the DFOs scored on level 2, which shows they have at least less than half adequate budget to deliver the program. The DFOs indicated that currently ORT funds are mainly used to implement aquaculture activities rather than EBFM and other fishing activities. Under sub-question 2, which focuses on DFOs having vehicles that support sufficient implementation of the programs. 75% which is 6 out of 8 DFOs scored level 1 (Table 1), which stipulates that the DFOs have no vehicles nor access to one for them to sufficiently implement its program. The lack of mobility hinders the adequate coordination of outreach to communities. While only 25% of the DFOs which is 2 out of the 8 DFOs scored a level 2, which shows that they have a vehicle but insufficient resources for to utilize the vehicles for EBFM activities. Sub-question 3 is aimed at finding out whether the DFOs have enough motorcycles for its extension workers to adequately implement their programs. 75% of the DFOs scored level 1, which they explained they have less than 25% of the staff with motorcycles allocation for the extension workers. For example, Karonga DFO has two motorcycles which they maintain using the ORT allocated to them, but these are not enough to cover the 6 strata they have in the district. 2 out of 8 DFOs scored 3 which shows that less than 75% of the extension workers have motorcycles that allow them to implement the programs. Sub-question 4, which focuses on DFOs having adequate funds from government to run and maintain the motorcycles. The results show that all 8 DFOs scored at level 1, which shows that DFOs do not have funds for maintenance and fuel from any source for the motorcycles. Sub-question 5, focuses on DFOs having all positions filled. Scrutiny of staff returns reveals understaffing in the department. Table 3 shows that 75% of District Fisheries Offices staff positions are vacant with 26-50% of staff positions filled. Two DFOs (Rumphi and Likoma) out of the 8 are critically under-staffed with less than 25% vacancies filled.

14

Finally, sub-question 6 focuses on generating information on the ability of DFOs to independently mobilize resources. From the results, it shows 100% which translates to all 8 DFOs scored level 1, which shows that DFOs do not independently mobilize resources. There is no resource mobilization plan & strategy in all districts nor other means of generating funds. The DFOs purely depend on ORT funding to implement fisheries management activities. Overall, with an average score of 1.3 for the domain, reveals that there is inadequate organizational and planning support to DFOs which hinders staff from carrying out their roles effectively and limiting their engagement with fishing communities. Further, the results show that all the DFOs do not practice mobilizing material resources to support local fishing communities and other fisheries stakeholders.

D. Service Delivery- Fisheries

This domain involves the way inputs and services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time.

Figure 4: Average scores of all DFOs in Service delivery on fisheries

Score

1 2 3 4

Statement of Excellence No. of groups %

No. of groups %

No. of groups %

No. of groups %

Our District Fisheries Office fully implements enforcement activities. 0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District fisheries office actively supports the local communities to protect critical habitats and demonstrates success 0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District fisheries Office promotes the formation and management of sanctuaries in their area 5 63% 3 38% 0 0% 0 0%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Service Delivery - Fisheries

Service Delivery - Fisheries Average

15

Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to all BVCs 8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has fully mature communications plan and implementation fully aligned to the NFACS 8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has secured Management Agreements for all LFMAs in their District 7 88% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13%

Table 4: Performance of each District Fisheries office in Service delivery on fisheries

The domain focuses on service delivery in fisheries as per the statements of excellence that are detailed in Figure 4 and Table 4. This domain assesses how inputs and services are sustainably organized and managed. Sub-question 1 shows that all 8 DFOs scored level 2, which reveals that enforcement activities are implemented irregularly depending on fund availability. Enforcement activities are well outlined in their respective work plans but are implemented with external influence for example by other existing projects in the district. For example, the Mangochi DFO enforcement activities are supported by the FiRM project.

In sub-question 2, which focuses on DFOs actively supporting the local communities to protect critical habitats and demonstrates success, all DFOs scored at level 2. This indicates that there is some limited support to protection of critical habitats, mainly through project activity but there is little impact on habitat condition. Most of the DFOs emphasized that most of these critical habitats and hotspots have not yet been fully identified.

Sub-question 3 focuses on DFOs being able to promote the formation and management of sanctuaries in their area. As shown from the results, 63% of DFOs which is 5 out of 8 DFOs scored level 1, which shows that they do not promote the formation and management of sanctuaries in their area while 38% of DFOs scored level 2, which shows these DFOs actively promote sanctuaries and supports BVC to manage sanctuaries even though less than 25% of BVCs have sanctuaries. An example of the DFO that scored level 2 is Mangochi, where FISH project heavily promoted sanctuary management.

Sub-question 4 asks if DFOs are able to deliver EBFM trainings to all BVCs. The results show that all 8 DFOs scored level 1, which shows that there is lack of DFOs owning or developing work plans with detailed EBFM activities to conduct EBFM trainings.

Sub-question 5, focuses on DFOs having a fully mature communications and implementation plan aligned to NFACS. All 8 DFOs scored level 1, no formal communication plan. All the DFOs expressed that they were not even aware of the NFACS and are not sure what activities are outlined in it. The document has not been shared to them by the head office.

Sub-question 6 focuses on DFOs having secured management plans for all LFMAs in their district. The results show that 88% which is 7 out of the 8 DFOs scored at level 1 indicating that they do not have adequate knowledge in user rights.

Overall, the domain has an average score of 1.4, which shows that the DFOs underperform in delivering quality services for continued sustainability of fisheries largely due to lack of resources.

E. Service Delivery- Cross Cutting

This section examines the way essential cross-cutting input services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time.

16

Figure 5: Average scores of all DFOs in service delivery of cross cutting activities

Score

1 2 3 4


% No. of groups

% No. of groups

% No. of groups

%

Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated gender strategy to mainstream issues of gender into programme delivery

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated youth development strategy to mainstream issues of youth into programme delivery

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods among fishing communities.

8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table 5: Performance of delivery on cross cutting issues

The domain focuses on service delivery in cross-cutting activities, which involves, the way essential cross-cutting input services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time. The results reveal that 100% of the DFOs do not have a gender strategy to mainstream issues of genders into service delivery, 100% of DFOs do not have a youth development strategy to mainstream issues of youth and 100% of DFOs do not promote alternative livelihoods among fishing communities.

CONCLUSION The study revealed that the DFO officers in the 8 targeted districts were at different levels during the time of the survey. Districts like Mangochi and a little bit in Nkhata Bay have some of the things in place e.g. attending DC meetings and for Mangochi keeping records or minutes of meetings attended. The survey team was able to see the minutes in DFO’s computer. Some of the field staff send monthly reports in hard copies and the team was able to see the reports nicely filed in well labeled folders. The reports from field

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


Service Delivery - Cross Cutting

Service Delivery - Cross-cutting

17

officers showed number of meetings conducted and issues discussed in those meetings. Mangochi DFO office was able to show better results because of the FISH project which was there for 5 years and REFRESH is still operating in the district through CISER a local partner that working with LFMAs in Lake Malawi to operationalize some of the achievements made by FISH project. The other districts where there have been no projects or interventions had low performance and all of them indicated at the end of the interviews that the survey gave them better lessons on how the DFO office is supposed to function to advance EBFM activities.

DFO attend various fora at council level (DEC, DAECC and management meetings) where they present fisheries sector reports. The attendance for some DFOs is irregular and ad hoc depending on funding and/or importance. There is usually lacks a systematic and regular process for meeting by DC officials in that other meetings finds the DFOs busy with other equally important activities. The DFO has no specific action plan to report on progress to the councils and councils are not leading on any pre-planned fisheries issues which would require technical input from the DFO’s office. Furthermore, there is generally lack of recorded documentation held in the DFO’s office. Minutes for these meetings are prepared by secretariat at the Council and there are delays in dissemination or the minutes are not shared at all.

In any one District there are often more than one project operating. DFOs rarely conduct coordination meetings, where different projects in the fisheries sector are brought together, mainly due to lack of funding. However, DFOs do have an opportunity to coordinate meetings by asking projects/partners to share costs.

District M&E Officers provide minimal support to the District Fisheries Offices. They are mainly active in following up progress on fisheries sector targets for compilation in the District Council Report. The M & E officers can assist with catch data analysis which is collected at the district for decision making at DC level.

Catch Assessment Survey (CAS) data is readily available with a backlog of not more than 3 months in all the 8 surveyed districts. However, this data is mostly transmitted to DoF headquarters and rarely shared with other stakeholders to make decisions at district level.

Inadequate funding remains the biggest challenge to implement planned fisheries activities at district level. In particular, the lack of motorcycles impedes mobility of field staff to cover entire areas under their jurisdiction and ultimately compromising service delivery. leading to over-reliance on projects, The DFO office does not have a plan to coordinate effort to mobilize resources but rather relies on projects for ad hoc sporadic support.

All offices have more than 50% vacant positions which seriously impedes its ability to carry out a comprehensive program to deliver technical and extension support services in the Districts.

There is some limited support to local communities, mainly through projects, to protect critical habitats. This is evident in the prevalence of fish no-take zones in areas where the FISH project was implemented.

Although NFACS was officially launched at national level, the majority of the surveyed DFOs are not familiar with activities therein or not even aware of the Strategy’s existence.

All surveyed District Fisheries Offices do not have gender and youth development strategies. These might be available at national level; however, they have not been cascaded down to district level for incorporation into the activities of DFOs.

There are five sections of this ROCA of 6 criteria each. The averages for each section are A-1.68, B-1.53 C-1.31, D-1.41 and E-1 (3 criteria only). The average for all 27 criteria is 1.45 with a total score of 37.9 from a possible total of 108 (35%). A score of 1 is no activity at all for each criteria which means the current situation demonstrates poor performing Districts when rated against the prescribed criteria. It is important to note that there are no scores of 3, a score which would indicate moderately performing criteria and thus organizational performance. The REFRESH projects aims to raise the average score greater than 2 by the mid-term and 2.5 by the end of the project including at least one quarter of the criteria scoring a 3.

18

The REFRESH project has a principle objective to build capacity of the Department. In ‘Recommendations’ below we provide potential improvements to raise the score of our ‘statements of excellence’ which collectively aim to improve the capacity of the District fisheries offices to be able to fulfill its mandate. We also provide an indication where REFRESH can specifically provide support. For example, we could provide training and resources but not hire staff into vacant positions or compensate their costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS The ROCA survey findings enabled REFRESH to understand the status of EBFM at the District Fisheries Offices and how they can be supported for an effective implementation of EBFM. The following are key recommendations for an effective EBFM in the targeted districts:

19

SECTION A – Stewardship, Planning & Coordination

The table below shows graded-criteria for performance assessments levels 1 to 4 colour coded for highest number of Districts (dark salmon colour) scored at this level and 2nd highest (light salmon colour). Our recommendations are provided for improving the level score and thus performance for the District office across 27 statements of excellence categorized within 5 domains.

S/No Statement of Excellence

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Avg Score

Recommendation

A. Stewardship, Planning & Coordination: This involves overseeing and guiding the whole District Fisheries Office in order to influence the DC to support the fisheries sector and adopt inclusivity to plan its own programmes

1 Our District Fisheries Office always attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries

Our District Fisheries Office does not attend meeting at DC level to report on fisheries. (3 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries up to 4 times a year. (5 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries up to 8 times a year.

Our District Fisheries Office attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries more than 8 times a year.

1.6 Short technical meetings for staff quarterly are crucial to check progress of field work and plan for the next quarter. Until a new financing structure is in place, REFRESH will support the DFO to attend DC meetings to promote sustainable PFM Joint work planning with other fisheries related projects will be encouraged by the project and REFRESH will lead on a co-funding coordination meetings. Half day monthly meetings at the DFO office will help to

Source Self-reporting Meeting Reports Meeting Reports Meeting Reports

2 Our District Fisheries Office regularly coordinates meetings with fisheries related projects within the District.

Our District Fisheries Office does not conduct coordination meetings with fisheries-related projects within the DC (5 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries -related projects within the DC at least once in a year (3 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries-related projects within the DC twice in a year

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries -related programmes within the DC more than twice in a year

1.4

Source Self-reporting Coordination meeting reports

Coordination meeting reports


20



Recommendation

3 Our District office holds monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff.

Our District office does not hold monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff. (5 districts)

Our District office holds up to 4 monthly meetings per year with fisheries technical and management staff. (2 districts)

Our District office holds up to 8 monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff. (1 district)

Our District office holds up to 12 monthly meetings per year with fisheries technical and management staff.

1.5 bring technical and management staff and address some administrative issues and minutes be drawn for further reference REFRESH will work with DFO offices to make sure that DoF extension workers, DFOs are skilled and motivated to work with BVCs, making sure they attend BVC meetings every quarter and that all the BVC events and minutes are recorded for further reference An integrated workplan with at least 50% of its activities related to EBFM should be developed and monitored and that all records are kept for further reference. REFRESH could support the development of workplans integrated into the meetings

4 Our District Fisheries Office ensures the functionality of Beach Village Communities (BVC)

Our District Fisheries Office does not support activities of Beach Village Communities (BVC). No visits at all

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVCs activities up to 4 times a year (7 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVCs activities up to 8 times a year (1 district)

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVC activities more than 8 times a year

2.1

Source Self-reporting Reports on the formation of BVCs

Meeting and activity reports showing support to BVCs


5 Our District Fisheries Office has a comprehensive EBFM work plan.

Our District Fisheries Office does not have an EBFM work plan. (environmental, economic, social

Our District Fisheries Office has work plan with no activities related to EBFM workplan [count activities on the checklist]

Our District Fisheries Office has up to 50% of the activities in workplan related to EBFM workplan

Our District Fisheries Office has up to 75% of the activities in workplan related to EBFM workplan [count activities on the checklist]

1.0

21



Recommendation

and cultural factors) (8 districts)

[count activities on the checklist]

An updated fisheries chapter in SEP to allow fisheries issues to be incorporated in the DDP. This will involve significant integration with the LGAP project

Source Self-reporting EBFM workplan EBFM workplan EBFM workplan

6 Our District Fisheries Office has contribution to the District Development Plans (DDP).

Our District Fisheries Office does not contribute to the DDP

Our District Fisheries Office has had minimal contribution to the DDP (there also may be no fisheries chapter) (5 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has contributed to the DDP by being engaged in the planning (SEP) and contributed to the fisheries chapter in the DDP (2 districts)

Our District fisheries office authored a fisheries chapter in the DDP (1 district)

2.5

Source Self-Reporting Draft SEP Finalized SEP DDP with fisheries chapter

22

SECTION B – Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning



Recommendation

B. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning: Refers to the process of tracking activities, assessing whether objectives of the program are achieved, sharing and utilization of documented information

7 Our District Fisheries office conducts a needs assessment with LFMAs before developing a work plan

Our District Fisheries Office does not conduct needs assessment with LFMAs (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office informally conducts a needs assessment with LFMAs

Our District Fisheries Office often conduct needs assessment with LFMAs using qualitative method only.

Our District Fisheries Office conducts a comprehensive needs assessment with LFMAs using both qualitative and quantitative methods

1.0 REFRESH M&E team should jointly work with DFO staff to develop needs assessment tools

Source Self-reporting Report Report Report

8 Our District office has a designated M&E officer to supports the office with M&E tasks.

The District Council M&E officer does not support Our District Fisheries office (7 districts)

The District Council M&E officer supports our District Fisheries office 3 months in a year (1 district)

The District Council M&E officer supports our District Fisheries office 6 months in a year


1.1 M&E officers based at DCs should be utilized and encouraged to work with DFO offices and not only collect data for incorporation into council reports. The officers should be linked to the REFRESH M&E team and other projects to make them understand the systems and engage them in M&E activities

Source Self-reporting M&E Reports M&E Reports M&E Reports

9 Our District Fisheries Office maintains good quality data storage systems.

Our District Fisheries Office does not maintain electronic and paper-based data storage systems.

Our District Fisheries Office has an ad hoc topic driven paper-based data storage system (5 district)

Our District Fisheries Office maintains paper-based and partial electronic data storage system (2 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office maintains an electronic data storage system which is systematic in design with back-up

2.1 REFRESH M&E team should mentor and coach DFOs and DC M&E Officers in setting up simple relational databases

23



Recommendation

(1 district)

Source No data storage system

Paper-based data storage system e.g. poorly filing system, not secured or difficult retrieval

Paper-based data storage system e.g. good filing system, secured and easy to retrieval

Electronic and paper-based data storage system i.e. good filing system, secured, back-up and easy retrieval

10 Our District Fisheries Office collects data and does not have data backlog of more than one month

Our District Fisheries Offices has data backlog of 6 months and more

Our District Fisheries Offices has data backlog of 3 to 5 months (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Offices has data backlog of 1 to 3 months

Our District Fisheries Offices has the capacity to process data within a month and therefore has no data backlog

2.0 REFRESH under SA2 will set up a new tablet-based monitoring system which collects data and stores in real time.


11 Our District Fisheries Office always uses data for planning (at all stages of program cycle) and decision making.

Our District Fisheries Office does not use data for planning (1 district)

Our District Fisheries Office has data but not used for planning and decision making (6 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has data that is used at initial planning and decision-making stages but not used for program improvement (1 district)


2.0 DC M&E should assist with data analysis and DFO and team should use the results for adaptive programming. Effective communication of data used for FSTAP’s advisory program will facilitated by REFRESH

Source Self-reporting Data is available, self-reported that data is not used

Plans demonstrates evidence of data

Plans demonstrates evidence of data use

24



Recommendation

in planning and decision making

use at initial stages.

at all stages of program cycle

12 Our District office maintains gender disaggregated data

No disaggregation of data by gender (8 districts)

Demand driven disaggregation of data by gender through projects only

Data is disaggregated always and is mainstreamed into the M&E function

Data is disaggregated always and is mainstreamed into the M&E function and the data is interpreted for further enhanced gendered work planning

1.0 Data collection templates should be updated to ensure disaggregation of data by gender promoted by the REFRESH project


SECTION C- Resources and Resource Mobilization



Recommendation

C. Resources and Resource mobilization: is the ability of the District Fisheries Office to raise and efficiently utilize resources to successfully deliver its program to oversee the successful implementation of sustainable EBFM practices.

13 Our District Fisheries Office has adequately funded budget to deliver EBFM activities.

Our District Fisheries Office do not have adequate resources and severely compromises services and programming (5 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has less than half adequate budget to deliver the program (3 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has half to 3/4 adequate budget to deliver the program

Our District Fisheries Office has greater to 3/4 adequate budget to deliver the program

1.4 The DFOs plans and budget towards ORT to focus on EBFM activities rather than aquaculture activities only. Funding will be improved through a devolved financing mechanism directed towards EBFM

Source Self-reporting Budget Budget Budget

25



Recommendation

14 Our District Fisheries Office has vehicles to sufficiently implement its program

Have no vehicle nor any access to one. (6 districts)

Have a vehicle but insufficient resources for running most of the time (2 districts)

Resources sufficient for half the required need and most funds from project sources

Adequate sustainable support to supervise and deliver the program through vehicle operation

1.3 Organize harmonized activities with projects and other natural resources sectors with the district council. Extension staff to organizes joint and harmonized planning with projects Projects may provide fuel for extension staff with motorcycles upon submissions of EBFM reports in the interim pending a new devolved financing mechanism DFO to regularly submit monthly reports with under staffing challenge highlighted in their respective offices. This will push government to act on this and fill all the necessary positions

Source Self-reporting Vehicle Records Vehicle Records Vehicle Records

15 Our District Fisheries Office has enough motorcycles for its extension staff to adequately implement its workplan/program

<25% allocation to staff (6 districts)

<50% allocation to staff (1 district)

<75% allocation for staff (1 district)

>75% allocation for staff

1.4


16 Our District Fisheries Office had adequate funds from government sources to run and maintain the motorcycles

No funds for maintenance and fuel from any source (8 districts)

Some funds but mainly from projects

Adequate funds but mainly from project sources

Adequate funds from government sources

1.0


17 Our District Fisheries Office has all positions filled.

District Fisheries Office is critically under-staffed with <25% vacancies filled (2 districts)

District Fisheries Office most positions are vacant with 26-50% of staff positions filled (6 districts)

District Fisheries Office has few positions vacant with 51-75% of the positions filled

District Fisheries Office has almost all positions filled 75%> (with very little impact on performance by those vacant)

1.8

Source Self-reporting Staff Return Staff Return Staff Return

26



Recommendation

18 Our District Fisheries Office independently mobilizes resources

Our District Fisheries Office does not mobilize resources to implement EBFM activities (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes minimal funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes moderate funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes substantial funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

1.0 The DCs should explore other revenue generation mechanisms for them to have adequate budget to support EBFM activities at the DC. The REFRESH could assist with understanding new arrangements for financing the sector at District level and garner their support for official approval to operationalize a new financing arrangement

Source Self-reporting Funded proposals, reports of fund-raising activities, DC revenue e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

Funded proposals, reports of fund-raising activities, e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

Funded proposals, reports of fund-raising activities, e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

SECTION D – Service Delivery (Fisheries)



Recommendation

D. Service Delivery - Fisheries: Involves the way inputs and services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time

19 Our District Fisheries Office fully implements enforcement activities.

Our District Fisheries Office does not implement enforcement activities.

Our district enforcement office is ad hoc and externally driven (8 districts)

Our district enforcement office has a delivery plan in place with mandate, but results are patchy

Our district enforcement office has full mandated plan to roll out an effective MCS achieves good results demonstrably

2.0 Support the DC and DFOs to Increase compliance with fishery regulations through awareness programmes and strengthening monitoring and enforcement capacity by

27



Recommendation

reducing illegal fishing practices

training DoF Enforcement Officers, Magistrates, and prosecutors

Source Self- reporting Presence of external action plan implemented with external influence

Delivery plan available with some patchy results

Fully mandated plan showing the roll out of effective MCS to reduce illegal fishing practices

20 Our District fisheries office actively supports the local communities to protect critical habitats and demonstrates success

There is no active support of critical habitats

There is some limited support mainly through project activity but there is little impact of habitat condition (8 districts)

The support for critical habitat restoration and management is active demonstrated by less than 30% of habitats in 'poor' degraded condition

The support for critical habitat restoration and management is very active demonstrated by less than 15% of habitats in 'poor' degraded condition

2.0 Support the DC and DFOs through joint work-planning to develop management plans that will support habitat restoration and management. Some critical hotspots will be directly funded

Source Self- reporting annual reports annual reports annual reports

21 Our District fisheries Office promotes the formation and management of sanctuaries in their area

The District has very few sanctuaries and the District office does not engage with communities to manage these well (6 districts)

The District fisheries office promotes sanctuaries but less than 25% of BVCs have a sanctuary (2 districts)

The District fisheries office actively promotes sanctuaries and supports BVC to manage sanctuaries at up to 50% of BVC locations

The District fisheries office actively promotes sanctuaries and supports BVC to manage sanctuaries at more than 50% of BVC locations

1.3 Work with the DC and DFOs support LFMAs to protect spawning and nursery areas to rebuild the stock by conducting seasonal closures and community led sanctuaries.


22 Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to all BVCs

Our District Fisheries Office does not deliver EBFM training. (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to 25% of BVCs


Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to 75% or more of BVCs

1.0 Work with DCs and DFOs to train LFMAs in EBFM. Co-working with DoF fisheries extension officers will

28



Recommendation

Source Self-reporting Self-reporting and adequate knowledge in user rights

Data base of 50% of the sub-FAs with signed management agreements

Data base of at least 70% of the sub-FAs with signed management agreements

improve understanding and knowledge of EBFM

23 Our District Fisheries Office has fully mature communications plan and implementation fully aligned to the NFACS

Our District Fisheries Office has no formal communication plan (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with few communications activities and products

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with some communications activities and products developed and implemented partially aligned to the NFACS

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with all communications activities and products developed and implemented fully aligned to the NFACS

1.0 Work with DCs and DFOs to develop a communication plan aligned to NFACS that will support implementation of EBFM. Share the NFACS and include in a workshop for all DFOS

Source Self-reporting Document(s) describing coverage targets with communication activities and products

Document(s) describing coverage targets with some communication activities and products developed and implemented partially aligned to the NFACS

Document(s) describing coverage targets with fully mature communication plan which is fully aligned to the NFACS

24 Our District Fisheries Office has secured Management Agreements for all LFMAs in their District

<25% of eligible LFMAS granted (7 districts)

<50% of eligible LFMAs granted


>75% eligible LFMAs granted (1 district)

1.4 Work with DCs and DFOs to support LFMAs secure management agreement with the Director of Fisheries

29



Recommendation


SECTION E – Service Delivery (Cross-cutting)



Recommendation

E. Service Delivery - Cross-cutting: Involves the way essential cross-cutting input services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety, and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time

25 Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated gender strategy to mainstream issues of gender into programme delivery

Our District Fisheries Office has no gender strategy. (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with minimal integration into program plans.

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with moderate integration into program plans.

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with full integration into program plans.

1.0 Engagement with the DoF gender officer during work planning and implementation will help to mainstream and address gender gaps in EBFM. Continuous mentoring of DFO officers by the gender officer will be key to gender-based approach in DFO offices Work with other sectors and organization working on alternative livelihoods and have integrated workplan

Source Self-reporting Gender Strategy Gender Strategy Gender Strategy

26 Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated youth development strategy to mainstream issues of gender into programme delivery

Our District Fisheries Office has no youth development plan strategy. (8 districts)

Our District Fisheries Office has a youth development strategy with minimal integration to project activities

Our District Fisheries Office has a youth development strategy with moderate integration to project activities

Our District Fisheries Office has comprehensive youth development integrated in its programs linked to project activities

1.0

Source Self-reporting Youth Development Strategy and Report

Youth Development Strategy and Report


27 Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods

Our District Fisheries Office does not promote

Our District Fisheries Office has plans to promote

Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative

Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods among the majority

1.0

30



Recommendation

among fishing communities.

alternative livelihoods. (8 districts)

alternative livelihoods but has not acted on the plans.

livelihoods among some fishing communities

of fishing communities

that will benefit fishing communities. The District fishery office staff will be continuously exposed to the activities of the project which promote conservation enterprises under SA4


31

ANNEXES Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool

Tick where appropriate

Level 1. Lowest Level 2. Bad Level 3. Fair Level 4. Good

Example Our District Fisheries Office has 10 trained extension workers in EBFM

Our District Fisheries Office has no trained extension workers in EBFM

Our District Fisheries Office has 25% trained extension workers

in EBFM

Our District Fisheries Office has 50% trained extension workers in EBFM

Our District Fisheries Office has 75% and above trained extension workers in EBFM

Source Self-Reporting Training Record Training Record Training Record

SNo Statement of Excellence

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Score

A. Stewardship, Planning & Coordination: This involves overseeing and guiding the whole District Fisheries Office in order to influence the DC to support the fisheries sector and adopt inclusivity to plan its own programmes

1 Our District Fisheries Office always attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries

Our District Fisheries Office does not attend meeting at DC level to report on fisheries.



Our District Fisheries Office attends meetings at DC level to report on fisheries more than 8 times a year.

Source Self-reporting Meeting Reports Meeting Reports Meeting Reports

32

2 Our District Fisheries Office regularly coordinates meetings with fisheries related projects within the District.

Our District Fisheries Office does not conduct coordination meetings with fisheries-related projects within the DC

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries -related projects within the DC at least once in a year

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries-related projects within the DC twice in a year

Our District Fisheries Office conducts coordination meetings with fisheries -related programmes within the DC more than twice in a year

Source Self-reporting Coordination meeting reports



3 Our District office holds monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff.

Our District office does not hold monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff.


Our District office holds up to 8 monthly meetings with fisheries technical and management staff.


4 Our District Fisheries Office ensures the functionality of Beach Village Communities (BVC)

Our District Fisheries Office does not support activities of Beach Village Communities (BVC). No visits at all

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVCs activities up to 4 times a year

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVCs activities up to 8 times a year

Our District Fisheries Office supports BVC activities more than 8 times a year

Source Self-reporting Reports on the formation of BVCs



33

5 Our District Fisheries Office has a comprehensive EBFM work plan.

Our District Fisheries Office does not have an EBFM work plan. (environmental, economic, social and cultural factors)

Our District Fisheries Office has work plan with no activities related to EBFM work plan [count activities on the checklist]

Our District Fisheries Office has up to 50% of the activities in work plan related to EBFM work plan [count activities on the checklist]

Our District Fisheries Office has up to 75% of the activities in work plan related to EBFM work plan [count activities on the checklist]

Source Self-reporting EBFM workplan EBFM workplan EBFM workplan

6 Our District Fisheries Office has contribution to the District Development Plans (DDP).

Our District Fisheries Office does not contribute to the DDP

Our District Fisheries Office has had minimal contribution to the DDP (there also may be no fisheries chapter)

Our District Fisheries Office has contributed to the DDP by being engaged in the planning (SEP) and contributed to the fisheries chapter in the DDP

Our District fisheries office authored a fisheries chapter in the DDP

Source Self-Reporting Draft SEP Finalized SEP DDP with fisheries chapter

B. Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning: Refers to the process of tracking activities, assessing whether objectives of the program are achieved, sharing and utilization of documented information

7 Our District Fisheries office conducts a needs assessment with LFMAs before developing a work plan

Our District Fisheries Office does not conduct needs assessment with LFMAs

Our District Fisheries Office informally conducts a needs assessment with LFMAs

Our District Fisheries Office often conduct needs assessment with LFMAs using qualitative method only.

Our District Fisheries Office conducts a comprehensive needs assessment with LFMAs using both qualitative and

34

quantitative methods


8 Our District office has a designated M&E officer to supports the office with M&E tasks.

The District Council M&E officer does not support Our District Fisheries office





9 Our District Fisheries Office maintains good quality data storage systems.

Our District Fisheries Office does not maintain electronic and paper based data storage systems.

Our District Fisheries Office has an ad hoc topic driven paper-based data storage system

Our District Fisheries Office maintains paper-based and partial electronic data storage system

Our District Fisheries Office maintains an electronic data storage system which is systematic in design with back-up

Source No data storage system

Paper-based data storage system e.g. poorly filing system, not secured or difficult retrieval

Paper-based data storage system e.g. good filing system, secured and easy to retrieval

Electronic and paper-based data storage system i.e. good filing system, secured, back-up and easy retrieval

10 Our District Fisheries Office collects data and does not have data backlog of more than one month

Our District Fisheries Offices has data backlog of 6 months and more



Our District Fisheries Offices has the capacity to process data within a month and therefore has no data backlog

35


11 Our District Fisheries Office always uses data for planning (at all stages of program cycle) and decision making.

Our District Fisheries Office does not use data for planning

Our District Fisheries Office has data but not used for planning and decision making

Our District Fisheries Office has data that is used at initial planning and decision making stages but not used for program improvement


Source Self-reporting Data is available, self-reported that data is not used in planning and decision making

Plans demonstrates evidence of data use at initial stages.

Plans demonstrates evidence of data use at all stages of program cycle

12 Our District office maintains gender disaggregated data

No disaggregation of data by gender

Demand driven disaggregation of data by gender through projects only

Data is disaggregated always and is mainstreamed into the M&E function

Data is disaggregated always and is mainstreamed into the M&E function and the data is interpreted for further enhanced gendered work planning


C. Resources and Resource mobilization: is the ability of the District Fisheries Office to raise and efficiently utilize resources to successfully deliver its program to oversee the successful implementation of sustainable EBFM practices.

36

13 Our District Fisheries Office has adequately funded budget to deliver EBFM activities.

Our District Fisheries Office do not have adequate resources and severely compromises services and programming

Our District Fisheries Office has less than half adequate budget to deliver the program

Our District Fisheries Office has half to 3/4 adequate budget to deliver the program

Our District Fisheries Office has greater to 3/4 adequate budget to deliver the program

Source Self-reporting Budget Budget Budget

14 Our District Fisheries Office has vehicles to sufficiently implement its program

Have no vehicle nor any access to one.

Have a vehicle but insufficient resources for running most of the time

Resources sufficient for half the required need and most funds from project sources

Adequate sustainable support to supervise and deliver the program through vehicle operation


15 Our District Fisheries Office has enough motorcycles for its extension staff to adequately implement its workplan/program

<25% allocation to staff

<50% allocation to staff

<75% allocation for staff

>75% allocation for staff


16 Our District Fisheries Office had adequate funds from government sources to run and maintain the motorcycles

No funds for maintenance and fuel from any source

Some funds but mainly from projects

Adequate funds but mainly from project sources

Adequate funds from government sources

37


17 Our District Fisheries Office has all positions filled.

District Fisheries Office is critically under-staffed with <25% vacancies filled

District Fisheries Office most positions are vacant with 26-50% of staff positions filled

District Fisheries Office has few positions vacant with 51-75% of the positions filled

District Fisheries Office has almost all positions filled 75%> (with very little impact on performance by those vacant)

Source Self-reporting Staff Return Staff Return Staff Return

18 Our District Fisheries Office independently mobilizes resources

Our District Fisheries Office does not mobilize resources to implement EBFM activities

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes minimal funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes moderate funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

Our District Fisheries Office mobilizes substantial funds for DC to implement EBFM activities

Source Self-reporting Funded proposals, reports of fund raising activities, DC revenue e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

Funded proposals, reports of fund raising activities, e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

Funded proposals, reports of fund raising activities, e.g. revenue collected at fish distribution points

D. Service Delivery - Fisheries: Involves the way inputs and services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time

19 Our District Fisheries Office fully implements enforcement activities.

Our District Fisheries Office does not implement enforcement activities.

Our district enforcement office is ad hoc and externally driven

Our district enforcement office has a delivery plan in place with mandate but results are patchy

Our district enforcement office has full mandated plan to roll out an effective MCS achieves good results demonstrably

38

reducing illegal fishing practices

Source Self- reporting Presence of external action plan implemented with external influence

Delivery plan available with some patchy results

Fully mandated plan showing the roll out of effective MCS to reduce illegal fishing practices

20 Our District fisheries office actively supports the local communities to protect critical habitats and demonstrates success

There is no active support of critical habitats

There is some limited support mainly through project activity but there is little impact of habitat condition

The support for critical habitat restoration and management is active demonstrated by less than 30% of habitats in 'poor' degraded condition

The support for critical habitat restoration and management is very active demonstrated by less than 15% of habitats in 'poor' degraded condition


21 Our District fisheries Office promotes the formation and management of sanctuaries in their area

The District has very few sanctuaries and the District office does not engage with communities to manage these well

The District fisheries office promotes sanctuaries but less than 25% of BVCs have a sanctuary

The District fisheries office actively promotes sanctuaries and supports BVC to manage sanctuaries at up to 50% of BVC locations

The District fisheries office actively promotes sanctuaries and supports BVC to manage sanctuaries at more than 50% of BVC locations


22 Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to all BVCs

Our District Fisheries Office does not deliver EBFM training.



Our District Fisheries Office delivers training on EBFM to 75% or more of BVCs

39

Source Self-reporting Self-reporting and adequate knowledge in user rights

Data base of 50% of the sub-FAs with signed management agreements

Data base of at least 70% of the sub-FAs with signed management agreements

23 Our District Fisheries Office has fully mature communications plan and implementation fully aligned to the NFACS

Our District Fisheries Office has no formal communication plan

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with few communications activities and products

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with some communications activities and products developed and implemented partially aligned to the NFACS

Our District Fisheries Office has a plan in place with all communications activities and products developed and implemented fully aligned to the NFACS

Source Self-reporting Document(s) describing coverage targets with communication activities and products

Document(s) describing coverage targets with some communication activities and products developed and implemented partially aligned to the NFACS

Document(s) describing coverage targets with fully mature communication plan which is fully aligned to the NFACS

24 Our District Fisheries Office has secured Management Agreements for all

<25% of eligible LFMAS granted



>75% eligible LFMAs granted

40

LFMAs in their District


E. Service Delivery - Cross-cutting: Involves the way essential cross-cutting input services are organized and managed, to ensure access, quality, safety and continuity of sustainability in fisheries sector across different locations and over time

25 Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated gender strategy to mainstream issues of gender into programme delivery

Our District Fisheries Office has no gender strategy.

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with minimal integration into program plans.

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with moderate integration into program plans.

Our District Fisheries Office has a gender strategy with full integration into program plans.

Source Self-reporting Gender Strategy Gender Strategy Gender Strategy

26 Our District Fisheries Office has a well formulated youth development strategy to mainstream issues of gender into programme delivery

Our District Fisheries Office has no youth development plan strategy.

Our District Fisheries Office has a youth development strategy with minimal integration to project activities

Our District Fisheries Office has a youth development strategy with moderate integration to project activities

Our District Fisheries Office has comprehensive youth development integrated in its programs linked to project activities

Source Self-reporting Youth Development Strategy and Report



27 Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods among the majority of all

Our District Fisheries Office does not promote alternative livelihoods.

Our District Fisheries Office has plans to promote alternative livelihoods but

Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods among some

Our District Fisheries Office promotes alternative livelihoods among the majority of

41

fishing communities.

has not acted on the plans.

fishing communities

fishing communities


Documents

RAPID ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT