Acronym List AfDB African Development Bank MTEA Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs AFO Administrative and Financial Officer M&E Monitoring and evaluation AIP Alien Invasive Plants NC National Consultant ALM Adaptation Learning Mechanism NCCC National Climate Change Committee AMAT Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool NCP Neighbourhood Care Point BADEA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa NDMA National Disaster Management Agency CASP Comprehensive Agriculture Sector Policy NDS National Development Strategy CBA Community Based Adaptation NFSP National Food Security Policy CCA Complementary Country Analysis NGO Nongovernmental organisation CDP Chiefdom Development Plan NIM National Implementation Modalities CMA Common Monetary Area NMS National Meteorological Service CMP Comprehensive Mitigation Plan NWA National Water Authority CO Country Office NWP National Water Policy CP Country Programme PAC Project Appraisal Committee CPAP Country Programme Action Plan PB Project Board CWE Chief Water Engineer PIF Project Identification Form
potential 1.2: A set of tailor-made climate change response measures related to national (and trans-boundary) water management identified and integrated into at least three (3) national level policies related to water resources management (e.g. NWP, IWRMP, draft National Climate Change Policy) through a series of national policy dialogue workshops (incl. with organisations listed under Output 1.1 and using strategic recommendations from that output) 1.2 Key national policies do not, or not adequately, consider climate change 1.2: A set of tailor-made climate change response measures related to national (and trans-boundary) water management identified and integrated into at least three (3) national level policies related to water resources management (e.g. NWP, IWRMP, draft National Climate Change Policy) through a series of national policy dialogue workshops (incl. with organisations listed under Output 1.1 and using strategic recommendations from that output) 1.2.1 Revised/ updated policy documents with specific sections on climate change adaptation 1.2.2 Policy dialogue workshop reports & attendance lists Assumption: Government remains committed to incorporating climate change adaptation into its policy documents as a matter of priority Risk: Policy adoption process gets obstructed by external (political) factors 1.3: Institutional needs for inter-sectoral cooperation identified (through national dialogue - Output 1.2), appropriate national coordination mechanism clearly defined, establishment/ strengthening of national coordination mechanism supported and capacity of key staff/ stakeholders strengthened through at least three (3) targeted training courses on inter-sectoral coordination 1.3 Inter-sectoral coordination needs and mechanisms not clearly defined, National Climate Change Committee not gazetted and with limited competencies 1.3: Institutional needs for inter-sectoral cooperation identified (through national dialogue - Output 1.2), appropriate national coordination mechanism clearly defined, establishment/ strengthening of national coordination mechanism supported and capacity of key staff/ stakeholders strengthened through at least three (3) targeted training courses on inter-sectoral coordination 1.3.1 Policy dialogue workshop reports & attendance lists 1.3.2 Institutional needs assessment report with recommendations for institutional strengthening 1.3.3 Government Gazette with formal establishment of inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms; minutes of committee meetings Risk: Lack of government commitment to formalised coordination mechanism Divergent sector stakeholder interests undermine effective inter-sectoral coordination
3.2: Targeted information briefs on projected climate change impacts on TWRM developed and disseminated to senior decision-makers in at least twenty (20) relevant organisations, including key water user groups 3.2 Stakeholder knowledge and awareness on climate change impacts on TWRM is very limited 3.2: Targeted information briefs on projected climate change impacts on TWRM developed and disseminated to senior decision-makers in at least twenty (20) relevant organisations, including key water user groups 3.2 Information briefs Risk: (Some) relevant stakeholders do not view climate change as a priority issue 4. Total Budget and Workplan Award ID: 00061373 Project ID(s): 00077723 Award Title: Adapting national and trans-boundary water resource management in Swaziland to manage the expected impacts of climate change Business Unit: SWZ10 Project Title: Adapting national and trans-boundary water resource management in Swaziland to manage the expected impacts of climate change PIMS no. 3603 Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) Department of Water Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy SOF (e.g. GEF) Outcome/Atlas Activity Responsible Party/ Implementing Agent Fund ID Donor Name Atlas Account Code ATLAS Budget Description Amount Year 1 (USD) Amount Year 2 (USD) Amount Year 3 (USD) Amount Year 4 (USD) Total (USD) See Budget Note: OUTCOME 1: Institutional capacity for climate change adaptation strengthened through the DWA 62180 GEF (SCCF) 71300 Local consultants 23193 9413 5622 5522 43750 a 71400 Locally recruited PMU staff 9500 9500 9500 9500 38000 b 74500 Miscellaneous 100 100 50 50 300 c 74200 Audio-visual & printing products 1000 1110 1110 750 3970 d y
integration of climate change risks into national water resources management policies and the establishment of inter-sectoral- coordination mechanims based on inclusive and informed national dialogue 75700 Workshops & Training 4552 7052 5297 3199 20100 e 71200 International consultants 68796 52416 18018 24570 163800 f 71600 Travel 17100 15449 7500 4516 44565 g GEF Subtotal OUTCOME 1 124241 95040 47097 48107 314485 OUTCOME 2: Climate change risk management measures integrated into national water and agricultural programmes and implemented in pilot projects to promote adaptation on the DWA 62180 GEF (SCCF) 71300 Local consultants 69402 76693 27545 4860 178500 h 71400 Locally recruited PMU staff 10314.5 10314.5 10314.5 10314.5 41258 i 72200 Equipment 142343 82172 13306 2179 240000 j 72300 Materials & Goods 35657 17828 5694 5321 64500 k 74500 Miscellaneous 100 50 50 50 250 l 75700 Workshops & Training 22748 18525 8723 2454 52450 m 74200 Audio-visual & printing products 9203 6275 2677 1045 19200 n 72100 Contractual Services - Companies 9500 11500 9800 7200 38000 o 71200 International consultants 85043 105062 75271 20224 285600 71600 Travel 21827 23500 16230 7000 68557 q GEF Subtotal OUTCOME 2 406137.5 351919.5 169610.5 60647.5 988315
Outcome 3: Negotiations on trans-boundary water management for the Incomati, Maputo and Umbeluzi river basins informed by climate change risk analysis. DWA 62180 GEF (SCCF) 71300 National consultants 10000 10000 10000 10000 40000 r 71400 Locally recruited PMU staff 8000 8000 8000 8000 32000 s 74500 Miscellaneous 50 50 50 50 200 t 75700 Workshops & Training 10000 20000 5000 5000 40000 u 74200 Audio-visual & printing products 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 v 71200 International consultants 27500 19310 8190 11000 66000 w 71600 Travel 6000 6000 3000 3000 18000 x GEF Subtotal OUTCOME 3 62550 64360 35240 38050 200200 Project management unit DWA 62180 GEF (SCCF) 74100 Locally recruited PMU staff 25000 21000 20000 19000 85000 74100 Professional services 10000 15000 15000 27000 67000 z 72200 Equipment 2000 1000 1000 500 4500 aa 74500 Miscellaneous 100 100 50 50 300 ab 72500 Office supplies 2000 1500 500 500 4500 ac 71600 Travel 1500 1500 1500 1200 4000 ad Total Management 40600 40100 38050 48250 167000 PROJECT TOTAL 633528.5 55419.5 289997.5 195055.5 1670000 Summary of funds:
Learning and knowledge sharing: Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and fora. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyse, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus in southern Africa or beyond. M&E workplan and budget Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Excluding project team staff time Time frame Inception Workshop and Report Project Manager UNDP CO, UNDP CCA Indicative cost: US$8,000 Within first two months of project start up Measurement of Means of Verification of project results. UNDP CCA RTA/PM will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members Gender sensitive and Vulnerability assessments: US$ 13,000 Start, mid and end of project (during evaluation cycle) and annually when required Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress on output and implementation Oversight by PM Project team To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Annually prior to ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans ARR/PIR Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RTA UNDP EEG None Annually Periodic status/ progress reports Project manager and team None Quarterly Mid-term Evaluation Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: US$ 25,000 At the mid-point of project implementation Final Evaluation Project manager and team, UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost : US$ 25,000 At least three months before the end of project implementation Project Terminal Report Project manager and team UNDP CO local consultant None At least three months before the end of the project Visits to field sites UNDP CO UNDP RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives For GEF supported projects, paid from IA fees and operational budget Yearly
8. Annexes Annex 1. Risk analysis # Description of the risk Potential consequence Countermeasures / Mng’t response Type (Risk category) Probability & Impact 1 The NCCC may remain a committee which is not gazetted. This may impact the effectiveness of NCCC as an inter-sectoral forum for policy dialogues. A central component of the project is to strengthen the capacity of the NCCC, and in particular, analyse options for its institutional development in order to strengthen its coordination function. While the project will, during its implementation, assist the government to enhance the legal status of the NCCC, if the required gazetting process is deemed very slow, then the project will need to determine whether NCCC will remain the best forum to work with or the project will have to identify another coordination forum to achieve the project outcomes. The project steering committee will advise the project on this point. Political P=3 I=2 2 Lack of involvement and co-operation of stakeholders to provide the project team with data. This will result in incomplete data collection and/or duplication of efforts, which may lead to delays in the completion of the outputs. Clear commitment of the relevant ministries and other stakeholders regarding data collection and sharing of data will be sought through PSC members and meetings. Operational P=2 I=4 3 Lack of clarity among stakeholders as regards to roles in the project. This will lead to an uncoordinated approach to tackling climate change, which will be a threat to successful project implementation. Stakeholder roles are detailed clearly in the stakeholder involvement plan. This plan will be presented, discussed and confirmed during the Inception Workshop. Operational P=2 I=2 4 Lack of political will to support the project at This will threaten the project’s sustainability. Project Steering Committee is constituted at sufficiently Political and strategic P=1 I=3
Assist in the timely issuance of contracts and assurance of other eligible entitlements of the project personnel, experts, and consultants by preparing annual recruitment plans. Annex 4. Capacity assessment Capacity Assessment: Department of Water Affairs Project Title Adapting to national and trans-boundary water resource management in Swaziland to manage expected climate change. Name of the Institution Department of Water Affairs – Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy Date of assessment 08-12-2010 INDICATOR AREAS FOR ASSESSMENT APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS/TOOLS COMMENTS PART I – REFERENCES AND PRELIMINARY CHECKS 1.1 History and Compliance with International Resolutions/Standards 1.1.1 History Date of creation and length in existence. Established by the act in 2009 but actual establishment was in 2008. Have hired a director Has the institution gone through a recent Restructured last year under legal notice in 2009. Formally all the water agencies responsible were brought together. Legal notice 25: realignment of ministries and departments. Annual Reports: Media Kit Website 1.1.2 United Nations Security Council 1267 Is the institution listed in any reference list? United Nations Security Council 1267 Committee’s list of terrorists and terrorist financiers Too young to be listed. 1.1.3 Certification Is the institution already certified through international standards? Yes- laboratories are accredited and follow standards. (two labs – one monitoring water river systems, and another monitoring water supply) ISO, Project Management standard, other standards?
PART II. ASSESSING NATIONAL INSTITUTION CAPACITY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.1 Managerial Capacity Ability to plan, monitor and coordinate activities Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Does the institution produce clear, internally consistent proposals and intervention frameworks, including detailed workplans? Yes. E.g. now doing their budget (want objectives etc). Have performance appraisals. (Ministers and PS are appraised on this. Regulated by office of the Prime Minster. Public policy coordination unit in the PM office. Does the institution hold regular programme or project review meetings? Yes. Are there measurable outputs/deliverables in the defined project plans? Yes. Was the institution previously exposed to UNDP RBM approach/methodology or equivalent in other donor agencies? Yes. E.g. UNICEF and other agencies. Well-designed project and programme documents yes Action Plans/Work plans Log frame or equivalent Project reports yes Evaluation reports yes Indicators available in project plans yes Lessons-Learned reports yes 2.1.2 Reporting and performance track record Does the institution monitor progress against well defined indicator and targets, and evaluate its programme/project achievements? Yes. Does the institution report to its stakeholders on a regular basis? Yes. (NGOs, international partners, Chinese, UNICEF) Reports to donors and other stakeholders yes Reporting system yes 2.2 Technical Capacity 2.2.1 Specialization Does the institution have the technical skills required? Not fully, for rural water supply they are short of Publications on activities, specific issues, analytical articles, policies
engineers, currently only have two on contract. Posts are not filled. Affects them most. Only technicians. Not enough money in government, most engineers go elsewhere. Process of filling a post is too bureaucratic takes 6 months minimum to fill posts. Also problem now with the lack of funds. They need to write to PM to advocate for posts now. Never got a hydrogeologist at all. Now got three geologists who they are training. (the civil service commission does the hiring). Does the institution have the knowledge needed? Yes pretty much. E.g. subscribing to journals etc. challenge with senior staff - Some training required. Does the institution keep informed about the latest techniques/ competencies/policies/trends in its area of expertise? Keep up to date with journals and internet. Does the institution have the skills and competencies that complement those of UNDP? Yes and no…need more experience. Reports from participation in international, regional, national or local meetings and conferences Tools and methodologies Evaluations and assessments Yes to all. 2.2.2 Ability to monitor the technical aspects of the project. Does the institution have access to relevant information/resources and experience? No. Does the institution have useful contacts and networks? Evaluations and Assessments yes Methodologies/training materials yes Use of toolkits, indicators and tools
manage and maintain infrastructure and equipment logistical infrastructure and equipment? Yes…but mostly got enough. Have labs, have rigs, have got enough technical tools. Can the institution manage and maintain equipment? Mostly fine…some rigs are 25 years old and are still running. infrastructure: office facilities and space, basic equipment, utilities yes Computer capability and library materials yes Proper equipment for area of specialization yes inventory to track property and cost yes, very strict. 3.1.2 Ability to procure goods services and works on a transparent and competitive basis. Does the institution have the ability to procure goods, services and works on a transparent and competitive basis? Yes. Have a procurement committee. Does the institution have standard contracts or access to legal counsel to ensure that contracts meet performance standards, protect UNDP and the institution’s interests and are enforceable? Yes. Does the institution have the authority to enter into contracts? Yes. (still use the national tender process). A very long process. There is a tender waiver for less than 500 000. Bu then need to look for three quotations. Standard contracts yes. Examples of how procurement is done through the procurement committee and the PS has his own committee that checks on this. Written procedures for identifying the appropriate vendor, obtaining the best price, and issuing commitments 3.1.3 Ability to recruit and manage the best-qualified personnel on a transparent and competitive basis. Is the institution able to staff the project and enter into contract with personnel? Problem – still stretched. Have to have a post to hire someone. Cannot create a Standard contracts Job descriptions Yes.
PART II. ASSESSING NATIONAL INSTITUTION CAPACITY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.1 Managerial Capacity Ability to plan, monitor and coordinate activities Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Does the institution produce clear, internally consistent proposals and intervention frameworks, including detailed workplans? Yes. Have performance appraisals. Does the institution hold regular programme or project review meetings? Yes. Are there measurable outputs/deliverables in the defined project plans? Yes. Was the institution previously exposed to UNDP RBM approach/methodology or equivalent in other donor agencies? Yes. E.g. UNCCD project. Well-designed project and programme documents yes Action Plans/Work plans Log frame or equivalent Project reports yes Evaluation reports yes Indicators available in project plans yes Lessons-Learned reports yes 2.1.2 Reporting and performance track record Does the institution monitor progress against well defined indicator and targets, and evaluate its programme/project achievements? Yes. Does the institution report to its stakeholders on a regular basis? Yes. (EU, IFAD, FAO funded projects) Reports to donors and other stakeholders yes Reporting system yes 2.2 Technical Capacity 2.2.1 Specialization Does the institution have the technical skills required? Technical Skills generally okay. Other areas of capacity may be a constraint such as resources for maintenance of equipment and plant. Does the institution have the knowledge needed? Yes pretty much. Publications on activities, specific issues, analytical articles, policies Reports from participation in international, regional, national or local meetings and conferences Tools and methodologies Evaluations and assessments Yes to all.
Does the institution keep informed about the latest techniques/ competencies/policies/trends in its area of expertise? Generally kept up-to-date. Internet and other information sources can be consulted if additional information is required. Does the institution have the skills and competencies that complement those of UNDP? Yes. 2.2.2 Ability to monitor the technical aspects of the project. Does the institution have access to relevant information/resources and experience? Generally yes. Does the institution have useful contacts and networks? Yes, some contacts. Does the institution know how to get baseline data, develop indicators? Yes. But there is room for improvement in this area. Does it apply effective approaches to reach its targets (i.e participatory methods)? Yes. They aim to do so. Evaluations and Assessments yes Methodologies/training materials yes Use of toolkits, indicators and tools Yes. Databases Yes, but there is room for improvement such as having up-to-date information. 2.2.3 Human Resources Does the institution staff possess adequate expertise and experience? Yes, but not all. Does the institution use local capacities (financial/human/other Profile of staff, including expertise and professional experience Most senior staff have M.Sc. engineering level up to directors. A few have doctorate level qualification.
resources)? Mostly local. What is the institution capacity to coordinate between its main office and decentralized entities/branches (if relevant)? Communication is generally quite good. The institution is used to working with dispersed teams. Have staff been trained on project management methodology? Some have. But there is need for increase in capacity in this area. Staff turnover Yes there is. But it is not major. Chart of assignments of roles and functions Reports on technical experience from national or international agencies for operations and capacity-building Individual certification on project management such as PRINCE2 No PART III. ASSESSING NATIONAL INSTITUTION CAPACITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3.1 Administrative capacity Ability to provide adequate logistical support and infrastructure 3.1.1 Ability to manage and maintain infrastructure and equipment Does the institution possess logistical infrastructure and equipment? Yes. Can the institution manage and maintain equipment? Yes. However, government funds tend to be the limiting factor in keeping the equipment and plant in good working condition always. Adequate logistical infrastructure: office facilities and space, basic equipment, utilities yes Computer capability and library materials yes Proper equipment for area of specialization yes inventory to track property and cost yes. 3.1.2 Ability to procure goods services and works on a transparent and competitive basis. Does the institution have the ability to procure goods, services and works on a transparent and competitive basis? Yes. Local teams initiate the process, and recommend to Central Tender Board. Does the institution have Standard contracts yes. Yes. Central Tender Board set the standards Written procedures for identifying the appropriate vendor, obtaining the best price, and issuing commitments
Lives system – water irrigation. Mobilize communities through technical assistance (TA). Model/training schedule/programme. Mbuluzi River Basin Group The group identified five sites in the basin for which it has provided a score and another two sites which cut across sectors. Over and above ranking the sites, the group also provided the estimate cost for each intervention and listed the potential implementation partners. Below is summarized the ranking by the group. The detailed information and scoring sheet attached as Annex II. Site Points (out of 30) Comment Conservation Agriculture (Shewula) - Cost : E 500,000 25 Sand Dam (Shewula) - E 600,000 24 Sand Dam (Kutsimuleni) - Cost: 600,000 23 Invasive Alien Plants (IAPS) (Dvokolwako)- E 1 million/500ha 23 Mlawula Nature Reserve Dam - Cost: E 350,000 20 Curriculum changes & training (UNISWA) - Cost: E 150,000 - No score Parliamentary Capacity Building on climate change and workers - Cost: E 200,000 - No score The group did not select a particular site, but observed that the cost might be the limiting factor in light of the available maximum budget for the project. Incomati River Basin Group The group proposed five sites in the Lomati and Komati River Basins. The sites had been ranked but no specific recommendations were made in terms of the most preferred site. The detailed information and scoring sheet is attached as Annex II. Site Points (out of 30) Comment Rangelands conservation & potable water supply (Mlumati (Near Mswati II High)) 23 Potable Water supply, IAPs & soil conservation (Nyakatfo) 22 Drought Resilient crops, IAPs & Alternative livelihood Projects (Mayiwane) 22 Pump raising and soil conservation stretch (KDDP)) 21 Might be very expensive Soil Conservation & Potable water supply ( Malanti-Nkomazi) 20 DISCUSSION The workshop observed though that while the group had proposed sound climate change adaptation interventions such as the pump-raising, the cost of some of them could be prohibitive in the light of the available budget for the project. Policy /Institutional Group The group presented the baseline policy and legislative framework in the country. It also identified the institutional framework and proposed additional institutions to be involved in climate change adaptation in the country. The group also addressed the aspect of current mandates and interactions, Mananga
SCORING SHEETS Group 2 (Incomati River Basin) – Scoring sheet Site Vulnerability criteria Level of poverty 1 = not very high 2 = high 3 = very high Access to safe drinking water 1 = adequate 2 = poor 3 = very poor Reliance on rain-fed agriculture 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Floods 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Drought 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Land degradation 1 = minimal 2 = apparent 3 = widespread and problematic Aquatic alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and Terrestrial alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and problematic Incidence of malaria and diseases 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Ongoing relevant projects in the site 1 = none 2 = few (1 – 2) 3 = many (3+) TOTAL (out of 30) 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 21 Mayiwane 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 22 Nkomazi/Malanti 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 20 Nyakatfo 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 22 Lomati/Mswati II 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 1 23
Group 3 (Mbuluzi River Basin) – Scoring sheet Site Vulnerability criteria Level of poverty 1 = not very high 2 = high 3 = very high Access to safe water 1 = adequate 2 = poor 3 = very poor Reliance on rain-fed agriculture 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Floods 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Drought 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Land degradation 1 = minimal 2 = apparent 3 = widespread and problematic Aquatic alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and Terrestrial alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and problematic Incidence of malaria and diseases 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Ongoing relevant projects in the site 1 = none 2 = few (1 – 2) 3 = many (3+) TOTAL (out of 30) Mlawula NR Dam 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 20 Sand Dam-Kutsimuleni 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 23 IAPs - Dvokolwako 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 23 Cons. Agric – Shewula 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 3 25 Sand Dam -Shewula 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 24 Group 4 (Lusutfu & Ngwavuma River Basins) – Scoring sheet Site Vulnerability criteria Level of poverty 1 = not very high 2 = high 3 = very high Access to safe water 1 = adequate 2 = poor 3 = very poor Reliance on rain-fed agriculture 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Floods 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Drought 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent Land degradation 1 = minimal 2 = apparent 3 = widespread and problematic Aquatic alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and Terrestrial alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and problematic Incidence of malaria and diseases 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high Ongoing relevant projects in the site 1 = none 2 = few (1 – 2) 3 = many (3+) TOTAL (out of 30) Dam construction Ndunayithini Nkanka/Lubalini 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 2 24 LUSIP beyond Ngcamphalala 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 22 Keleke earth dam Mankayane 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 21
ANNEX III: Participants List Adapting to national and trans-boundary water resource management in Swaziland to manage expected climate change Inception Workshop – 18 November 2010 Royal Swazi Convention Centre, Ezulwini Name Institution Tel/mobile Email 1 Mavela Sigwane Ngwavuma RBA 76078654 2 Trevor Shongwe Department of Water Affairs 404 1622 3 Bongani Mamba Ministry of Economic Planning & Development 404 3765/6136752 bonganim@yahoo.com 4 Musa Dlamini Swaziland Sugar Association musadlamini@ssa.co.sz 5 Thokozani Mndzebele Ministry of Health 5052041 6 James M. Kunene SANTC / KRBA 7 Paulos Methula EEWUD 76144812 8 Rex Brown SNC 76026448 9 Wenzile Mthethwa Department of Water Affairs 767 11647 Wenz.zile@hotmail.com 10 Richard Moskwa Lutheran Development Services 764444448 11 Teddy Dlamini Mlawula Nature Reserve 76485919 tedwoody@webmail.co.za 12 Ngwane B. Dlamini SNTC –Mlawula 383 8885 13 Anne Krugger EEWUD 323 2337 14 Seth Maphalala SNTC-TFCA 416 1489 15 Ambrose Dlamini MOA: Early Warning 404 6362/7694 2528 ambrosedlamini@gmail.com 16 Boniface D. Makhubu MOA: Crop Promotion 505 2851/7655 5275 makhubub@gov.sz 17 Sizwe Mabaso UNISWA 76124766 18 Bongani Mdluli Swaziland Water Services Corporation 7602 8735 Bongani.mdluli@swsc.co.sz 19 Abel Nhleko MOA: Crop Promotion 505 2851 20 Mandla Maduna World Vision International 76131687
ANNEX II: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FORM Site Vulnerability criteria Level of poverty 1 = not very high 2 = high 3 = very high (Lizinga lebuphuya) Access to safe drinking water 1 = adequate 2 = poor 3 = very poor (kutfolakala kwemanti lahlobile) Reliance on rain-fed agriculture 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high ( Lizinga lekuncika emvuleni kutelulimo) Floods 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent (kuvama kwe -Tikhukhula) Drought 1 = infrequent 2 = occasional 3 = frequent (Kuvama Land degradation 1 = minimal 2 = apparent 3 = widespread and problematic (lizinga lekugedvuka kwemhlaba) Aquatic alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and problematic (Lizinga lasandanezwe – lomila emifuleni) Terrestrial alien plants 1 = minimal 2 = prevalent 3 = very prevalent and problematic (Lizinga Incidence of malaria and waterborne diseases 1 = low 2 = medium 3 = high (lizinga lemararia netitfo temanti) Ongoing relevant projects in the site 1 = none 2 = few (1 – 2) 3 = many (3+) (Lizinga TOTAL (out of 30)
Mandla Makhanya Swaziland National Trust Commission 76089494 conservation@africaonline.co.sz Magdalene Thwala Ministry of Education – Senior Inspector Geography 7614 0378 magdathwala@yahoo.co.uk Sotja Dlamini Ministry of Natural Resources & Energy 76081643 sotja2@yahoo.com Sipho Nkambule KOBWA 437 1463 sipho.nkambule@kobwa.co.za Sakhiwe Nkomo Department of Water Affairs 404 2929/76122199 msaaksz@gmail.com Musa Masilela SWADE 765 79978 musa@swade.co.sz Mlondi Mnguni MNRE – Department of Energy Affairs 76266288 - Lindiwe Ntshangase MNRE – Department of Energy Affairs 76080614 lindiwedlamini@gmail.com Thabile Dlamini Swaziland Environment Authority 24046960 Cynthia Ndzabandzaba Farmers Federation 76698605 - Boy Mkhwanazi Farmers Federation 76234912 - Musa Ngwenya SWADE 76077676 - Dlamini Zacharia MTEA-Forestry 76378010 - Jonathan Matondo University of Swaziland 76579978 matondo@uniswacc.uniswa.sz Wisdom Dlamini Swaziland National Trust Commission 76024716 wdlamini@gmail.com Samkeliso Dlamini National Disaster Management Agency 76064107 samkeliso.dlamini@ndma.org.sz Akiko Yamamoto UNDP Regional Coordination Unit Obed Ngwenya DWA 24042929 wrb-wcon@realnet.co.sz Sithembile Hlatshwako UNDP-CO 7602 3095 Sithembile.hlatshwako@undp.org Dumisani Mndzebele National Consultant 76739509 dumi.mndzebele@gmail.com Daniel Malzbender International Consultant dbmalzbender@acwr.co.za Anthony Mills International Consultant