Contract Title] Calibri font, 18-22pt, centered Final Report

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR ORGANISATIONAL AUDIT OF THE

INDIGENOUS PLANTS TASK TEAM

Contract Title] Calibri font, 18-22pt, centered

commissioned by the Millennium Challenge Account Namibia with funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation

Final Report

8th October 2010

Page 2 of 97

Submitted by: Chris Albertyn

Chris Albertyn and Associates CC

Durban, South Africa

[email protected]

+27 31 764 5186

+ 27 82 804 9287

Ref: MCAN/COM/RCQ/2A01004 -A

mailto:[email protected]

Page 3 of 97

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 8

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 12

1. Preface .......................................................................................................................................... 13

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 14

Purpose, Method and Approach of the Audit................................................................................... 14

3. IPTT in context .............................................................................................................................. 16

The establishment of IPTT ................................................................................................................ 16

Figure One: IPTT, UPDP, NASSP and GTZ Funds Received (2000 – 2010). .................................... 17

A stretched value chain ..................................................................................................................... 17

The purpose and scope of IPTT ......................................................................................................... 19

Audit of organisation responses to 2007 strategic plan ................................................................... 20

Secretariat ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Supply Chain Management and Development ............................................................................. 24

Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Relationships ................................................................................................................................. 26

Capacity Development .................................................................................................................. 26

4. Common lessons from similar experience .................................................................................... 28

‘The nature of the beast’: Organisation structure and purpose ....................................................... 28

5. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 32

Table Two: Respondents to the web-based questionnaire. ......................................................... 32

Purpose and priorities of IPTT ........................................................................................................... 33

Table Three: Purpose and priorities for IPTT ................................................................................ 33

Organisational structure and management arrangements .............................................................. 34

Comments on financial and organisational sustainability. ............................................................... 37

Page 4 of 97

Appendix One: Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................... 38

Appendix Two: List of people interviewed ........................................................................................... 43

Appendix Three: Selected References Consulted ................................................................................. 44

Appendix Four: Responses to IPTT Web-based Questionnaire ............................................................ 45

Appendix Five: Draft notes on operations and strategy ....................................................................... 53

Appendix Six: Proceedings of the IPTT Organizational Audit Stakeholder Workshop .......................... 58

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 58

Process .............................................................................................................................................. 58

Response ........................................................................................................................................... 59

Function ............................................................................................................................................ 59

Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 60

Way Forward ..................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix Seven: Participants in the stakeholder workshop ............................................................... 63

Appendix Eight: Power-point presentation given to the workshop ..................................................... 64

Appendix Nine: Evaluation Feedback on the Workshop ...................................................................... 94

Page 5 of 97

Executive Summary

This assignment has two main tasks:

a) To conduct an organisational audit with reference to the implementation of

recommendations of the IPTT 2007 strategic planning meeting; and to determine

from stakeholders which recommendations remain relevant, and what else may be

needed in the current context.

b) Informed by consultations, to make practical recommendations with respect to any

organisational changes in the structure and modus operandi of IPTT.

The aim of this assignment has been to enhance the conditions for a sustainable and

relevant IPTT to flourish and continue to play an important role in contributing to the future

development of the INP sector in Namibia.

While this report marks the closure of an externally assisted process, it also forms the basis

from which IPTT can further embark upon its own self-managed process of evolution.

This organisation audit assignment provided the opportunity and space for reflection and

decision-making among key IPTT participants:

a) Through semi-structured interviews to reflect on the status quo, achievements,

ambitions and operational conditions of the task team;

b) Via a quantitative questionnaire share their preferences with respect to purpose,

priorities and organisation structure;

c) Through a nominated IPTT multi-stakeholder committee to meet three times to

receive briefings and to guide the consultant in facilitating this process;

d) To receive a first draft of this report a week ahead of a detailed presentation in a

workshop wherein the context, challenges and preferences of the task team

stakeholders are summarised;

e) To take part in independently facilitated and structured group discussion and

decision-making in response to the report, presentation and the recommendations;

This report focuses upon issues related to the organisation of IPTT. As such this report is not

an evaluation of performance and makes brief reference to historical activities in the

context of organisational change. The focus is on the three years since the Strategic

Planning Workshop in October 2007.

An organisation’s effectiveness is significantly enhanced when all partners within that

organisation agree upon and share an understanding of what the purpose and function of

that organisation is. The original purpose of IPTT was meant to be a multi-stakeholder body

Page 6 of 97

that oversaw the development and then implementation of a Namibian Government

strategy on indigenous plant products. The envisaged process and Government strategy

document did not materialise.

Significant energy was invested through IPTT and some stakeholders in the development of

the “Newco” concept which included the establishment of a primary producers’ trust. This

proposal was extensively canvassed and discussed during 2007, but did not go further.

Current consultations reveal differences among stakeholders on what they believe the

purpose of IPTT has been and should now be. Sixty percent of respondents do however

believe IPTT should prioritise the facilitation of information sharing and networking, and

also engaging with government in promoting the interests of the INP sector.

The export value of products from the INP sector is in GDP terms economically very small,

fluctuating between N$13 million (2009) and N$24 million (2008) per annum. The existence

of IPTT and activities generated as a result of its existence has added substantial value in

contributing to:

o Further developing product value chains and linking organised groups therein;

o Contributing momentum and visibility of the sector promoting sustainably

harvested products with stable well managed and relatively equitable supply

chains;

o engaging more than 8000 organised producers;

o enabling widespread distribution of small but important supplemental incomes

to poor rural people with fragile livelihood options.

While IPTT never became a formal multi-stakeholder body which assisted in the

development and then implementation of a Government-adopted strategy for indigenous

plants and their products, the IPTT has continued to engage in areas which have been

considered by stakeholders as relevant.

In the ten years since 2000 the IPTT and IFTT before it have received more N$6,5 million in

project monies – primarily government funds. The amount of money allocated for

disbursement through the IPTT has diminished dramatically over the last five years. It is

largely due to the relatively low absorptive capacity of implementing organisations in the

sector that the bulk of funds made available five years ago are only now beginning to come

to an end. The ambitious “spread-betting” and flexible scope that IPTT set for itself has also

led to “development fatigue” among those who took on pioneering roles.

The overall objectives of IPTT are described in a three-page 2005 Terms of Reference (ToR).

The scope of IPTT’s work as described in the ToR effectively mandates IPTT to engage itself

Page 7 of 97

with anything and everything related to the promotion of the sustainable utilisation of

Namibia’s indigenous plant resources.

The design and structure of any organisation should ideally be “purpose-built”. By purpose-

built it is meant that the organisational structure and way of functioning should be optimal

for helping the organisation best achieve its purpose within the environment that it

operates in. As a multi-stakeholder committee in which each of the member organisations

already has its own structures and primary loyalties, IPTT is an example of a new paradigm

of 21st Century organisational forms.

IPTT has, in many respects, been “self organising”, open to its environment, allowing for

responsiveness to opportunities. The energy that has driven and renewed this dissipative

multi-stakeholder structure has been provided by some key individuals and also the

availability of finances from government and donor organisations. Organisations as loosely

constituted as this typically act in “spurts” in direct response to injections of energy. While

they can make important contributions, such forms of organisation still do require focussed

leadership and planning to avoid spreading resources too thinly and face the risk of “burning

out” when the required energy supply ceases.

Operating with flexible and open boundaries, without clear differentiation of roles and

responsibilities demands high levels of capacity, focus and commitment from participants in

such a structure. Those who cannot contribute or work in this manner either stop

participating or become passive observers – presenting potential long-term risks to

institutional sustainability.

It has made sense for the IPTT – with its relatively small “core group” seeking to link wide

spans of the value chain – to shy away from allocating specific and specialised roles,

authority and tasks to particular leaders. Modern management science recognises that

traditional hierarchical organisations are not as effective in a fast-paced, changing

communication-driven world. Instead of specialisation and control, successful organisations

are now promoting flexibility, integration and innovation.

There are however a relatively small number of role-players across Namibia’s natural

products sector. This “thinly spread” presence has necessarily led to some people wearing

more than one hat - a blurring of role differentiation across the value chain, bringing with it

additional demands for managing suspicions, perceptions and expectations of less well

resourced stakeholders with respect to how available resources have been, or should have

been used.

Many IPTT stakeholders expressed ambivalence over their perception that some key

individuals and their organisations that “set the IPTT agenda and direction”, had benefitted

most and these circumstances had somehow led to the current post-2007 “default” modus

operandi of IPTT that was unsatisfactory to most.

Page 8 of 97

Highest levels of dissatisfaction were expressed around IPTT meetings having become too

administrative and bureaucratic, and that IPTT was not providing sufficient opportunity for

information sharing and stimulating cooperation in the development of shared strategic

self-knowledge across the sector.

Stakeholder responses in the interviews were notably ambivalent because, even though

many did express a belief that some partners benefitted disproportionately more than

others out of their engagement in IPTT, they also recognised and valued highly the

tremendous knowledge, vision and investment of energy that the “agenda-setters” had

contributed to the process of developing the sector in Namibia.

Findings and Recommendations

This audit finds that many of the recommendations from the October 2007 strategic

planning process have not been implemented. It also finds that some of the most critical

and important proposals from the 2007 meeting – particularly concerning organisation

structure and governance – continue to be valid and endorsed by the majority of

stakeholders in 2010. In this case, the main challenge is not identifying what to do; it is

about developing the organisational detail and leadership attention which enables

implementation and management of the changes wanted by stakeholders.

IPTT is not a formally or legally constituted body. While IPTT is recognised by the

Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) which chairs the body and has provided

funding for it, the absence of a formally recognised constituting document with a

description of purpose, membership, roles, responsibilities and procedures presents legal

risks and operational challenges to the future effective functioning of IPTT.

Over the past five years various developments in internal and external strategic contexts

related to IPTT have suggested the need for a reconsideration of the broad focus, structure

and operations of IPTT.

The 2007 Strategic Planning Process made close on thirty recommendations for

implementation. This report provides an account of the current status and relevance of

these recommendations.

The recommendations recorded below arise out of an extensive and cross-referenced

stakeholder consultation process. Some of these recommendations are a repeat and

endorsement of what was decided in 2007 (but not implemented); while others are in

response to feedback from the interviews and questionnaire.

Key findings

IPTT remains an important multi-stakeholder structure recognised by all as of value to

the INP sector in Namibia;

Page 9 of 97

All stakeholders recognise that meaningful engagement and leadership by Government

in IPTT is critical to the further development and realisation of IPTT’s potential;

The Secretariat services provided by GRN – and more recently also via MCA - to IPTT

through the NBRI are a critical and important resource enabling institutional continuity

and adding value;

That the GRN has recently reviewed the possible rationalisation of participation by

government representatives in multiple multi-stakeholder committees, and has moved

to close some of these committees or reduce the extent of their participation therein ;

The GRN is committed to the continuation IPTT and contributing some funding and

resources until at least 2014.

The IPTT Stakeholder Workshop held on 29th September (See appendix for report) validated

the contents and recommendations as contained in the first draft of this report. Workshop

participants agreed that the four broad objectives as outlined in the IPTT 2005 ToR

remained relevant.

It was also agreed that the primary purpose of IPTT included the following:

To promote and optimise coordination among stakeholders in the sector;

To provide an enabling framework for member organisations to act in a concerted

manner;

To provide a forum for discussion, reflection and development of knowledge of the

sector in Namibia with a view to:

o Identifying and agreeing upon sector-wide strategic priorities ;

o Giving attention to how all stakeholders could contribute to addressing these

identified priorities ;

o Where available and appropriate, to apply and direct resources to facilitate

achievement of desired outcomes.

Provide a conducive environment that promotes cooperation, develops mutual trust and

enables open and frank discussion of the challenges and opportunities in the sector.

It was recognised by participants that the above purposes could only be achieved through

investment in a long-term process. There was strong in-principle agreement by workshop

participants on some important recommendations in the audit report which will be taking

IPTT into new operational territory – moving from a task-team to a multi-stakeholder

platform.

It is no surprise that this IPTT audit process has served to stimulate a bigger process of

organisational reflection, engagement and change. This process has generated energy

within IPTT and the change-process has assumed a life and course which goes beyond the

initial terms and time-spans of this assignment. Important changes are being considered

and it is critical that IPTT and its stakeholders are afforded the time and space necessary to

Page 10 of 97

ensure that the final outcome is one which best serves the INP Sector in Namibia in the

future.

Some decisions and agreements among members of IPTT remain to be further discussed

and developed. To this end an IPTT task-team has been appointed to enable further

discussions and to resolve the “nitty-gritty” of some organisational details that the

workshop did not have time to discuss.

Key recommendations

That IPTT and its key stakeholders work towards:

Sharpening the focus of resources available to IPTT towards facilitating activities which

share information and contribute to wider strategic awareness of developments and

opportunities across the sector;

Enhancing its chances of securing additional and wider GRN support through actively

providing evidence of how IPTT’s activities contribute a positive impact and add value to

the achievement of government-aligned priorities;

That an IPTT management committee ensure the organisation of at least two events

annually at which a broad range of interested and affected parties come together for the

purpose of networking, sharing information and prioritising common actions which

would further develop the INP sector in Namibia.

That IPTT transforms itself into a membership-based multi-stakeholder platform with

clearly defined governance and operational procedures, which include:

o The definition of membership and procedures for application, confirmation and

removal of members;

o The holding of an Annual General Meeting and election of a representative

management committee mandated to conduct the administration and financial

management affairs of IPTT separate from any general meetings of IPTT;

o That shortly before the AGM a day-long strategic planning meeting for the

management committee (and their alternate representatives – ie a maximum of

14 people) is held to:

o Take stock of achievements and shortcomings of IPTT during the year;

o Note key opportunities and threats to the sector;

o Outline key focus and possible funding priority areas for the year ahead.

Page 11 of 97

o Circulate a summary report and proposal to all IPTT member organisations

prior to the AGM.

o At the AGM the members elect a management committee and give them an

endorsed strategy and action plan focussed for the year or years ahead.

o The identity or “brand” of IPTT is promoted as a facilitating (not implementing)

multi-stakeholder body that seeks to act in the common values-based interests

of developing the sector further;

o That it remains possible for the duly elected IPTT committee to be flexible and

responsive in transparently allocating any available funds by way of small grants

towards organisations and events which are aligned to and consistent with

annually agreed priority areas and action plans;

That government representation with respect to IPTT management matters become

rationalised to three representatives on IPTT, with one each from MAWF, MET and MTI;

o That the names of Government representatives on the IPTT management

committee are confirmed annually at the AGM of IPTT.

That Government continues to Chair the IPTT, and that the Chairperson be nominated

by Government;

That other government ministries (eg. Education) be invited to participate in IPTT

networking activities and consultations as and when appropriate;

That between five and seven other voting representatives (excluding the three from

GRN) become annually elected to the management committee of IPTT;

o That these representatives are elected as far as practicably possible on a

representational basis by their own interest group representatives: academia;

private sector; primary producers; organised communities; service

providers/NGOs;

o That donor representatives be invited to participate when needs be on an ex-

officio basis;

o That NBRI continues to provide support and secretariat services to the IPTT.

Page 12 of 97

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AGM Annual General Meeting

DCWG Devil’s Claw Working Group

GRN Government of the Republic of Namibia

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)

GmbH

HWG Hoodia Working Group

INP Indigenous Natural Plants and/or Plants Products

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

MCA-N Millennium Challenge Account-Namibia

MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism

MTI Ministry of Trade and Industry

NAB Namibia Agronomic Board

NACSO National Association of CBNRM Support Organization

NBRI National Botanical Research Institution

PPO Primary Producer and Processor Organizations

ToR Terms of Reference

UNAM University of Namibia

UPDP Useful Plants Development Project

Page 13 of 97

1. Preface

Within the timeframes available the key questions and tasks posed in the terms of reference

have been addressed. Any errors of fact and interpretation are my own.

This is a final report submitted to IPTT and MCA following presentation and discussion of the

draft report at a one-day IPTT workshop held on 29th September 2010.

A list of twenty-eight persons interviewed is provided in Annex One. Eighteen persons

completed the questionnaire circulated (Attached as Annex Two). The views of all of these

stakeholders were crucial in developing an analysis and recommendations for consideration

by the workshop. The first draft report was circulated to all stakeholders a week ahead of

the stakeholder workshop. Verbal and written comments validated the analysis contained in

the first draft report, and the key recommendations.

This is an independent report and the findings may not be shared by all stakeholders who

were interviewed. I am however confident that the recommendations put forward in this

report reflect the views and wishes of a significant majority of people I spoke with. Thank

you to all people who gave me their time and for sharing your knowledge and insights.

I am grateful for support provided by Mr Dave Cole and the offices of the Millennium

Challenge Account (MCA). Thank you too to the IPTT sub-committee who met with me three

times during this process to reflect upon progress and guide me further. I am particularly

grateful for the logistical support and insights of Ms Loide Uahengo who arranged for and

participated in the interviews.

Chris Albertyn

Durban, 8th October 2010

Page 14 of 97

2. Introduction

This chapter presents the purpose and objective of this IPTT organisation audit and the

methodology and approach applied. It also sketches a summary background to the

establishment of the IPTT.

Purpose, Method and Approach of the Audit

This audit was commissioned by a specially established IPTT sub-committee and takes place

with reference to an IPTT strategic planning meeting that took place on 4th and 5th October

2007.

The Terms of Reference identify two main objectives with subsidiary actions and outcomes:

1. By means of interviewing key stakeholders and reviewing key documentation,

conduct an organisational audit of the IPTT. The recommendations of 2007 IPTT

Strategic Planning Meeting form the baseline. The audit should establish:

a. which of recommendations have been carried out and which have not;

b. determine which recommendations remain relevant and applicable; or not;

c. identify additional actions, adjustments, opportunities for consideration;

2. Informed by the interviews and research, develop “practical recommendations” with

respect to function and structure of the IPTT. This includes:

a. commenting upon organisational structure and management arrangements

b. making recommendations for adjustments in the function and form of IPTT

with a view to strengthening the prospects for enhanced operations and

achievement of purpose and institutional sustainability;

c. mapping out a draft vision and objectives statement for the IPTT in the

context of strategic imperatives (internal and external)

d. developing an initial draft action plan for the implementation of the

recommendations

e. Comments on financial and organisational sustainability.

The ToR also require an exploration of any lessons learned from “other national-level,

sector-specific stakeholder groups in the southern African region.”

An organisation’s functioning is significantly enhanced when all partners within that

organisation agree upon and share an understanding of what the purpose of that

organisation is. This audit has explored issues of purpose, structure and functioning of IPTT.

Page 15 of 97

The aim of this audit is to present information, analysis and recommendations to assist

mandated decision-makers in IPTT to strategically reflect upon the relevance, purpose and

future functioning of a multi-stakeholder body which best promotes the common interests

of the indigenous plants sector in Namibia.

This report focuses upon issues related to the organisation of IPTT. As such this report is not

an evaluation of performance and makes brief reference to historical activities in the

context of organisational change. The focus is on the three years since the Strategic

Planning Workshop in October 2007.

This audit is working within a broader conceptual framework (see appendix five) which

considers a number of strategic elements essential to the effective functioning of

organisations. Such a framework is broadly organised around a strategy change cycle

approach, which takes into account:

1) Key trends and changes in the external context encompassed by IPTT; and 2) Taking stock of internal performance, interests, resources and capabilities IPTT has

to use and manage in seeking to promote and achieve its objectives.

The ‘most strategic’ issues are those:

Opportunities, if recognised and responded to, that can contribute to further enhancing the effectiveness of IPTT;

Conditions, situations, threats, if not noticed and not responded to, may prevent IPTT from being effective in achieving its purpose.

This audit has been informed by:

a detailed desk-top study of relevant documentation, including minutes of meetings and proceedings of workshops as well as directed web-based research;

attendance at the Phyto-trade Africa AGM over a three-day period at the beginning of August 2010;

A two-week period in Windhoek during which more than 30 interviews and meetings were held with stakeholders; including the 64th meeting of IPTT;

Eighteen stakeholder responses to an online web-based questionnaire;

Three briefing meetings with the IPTT sub-committee over the course of two visits to Namibia;

A one-day stakeholder workshop held on 29th September, in which 25 people received a presentation of this report, responded to it, and proceeded to make organisation-changing decisions.

Page 16 of 97

3. IPTT in context This chapter responds to the task of “taking stock”, performing an organisation audit. The chapter

begins with outlining key historical developments and summarises the flow of funds made available

through IPTT. The next section visits issues of organisation purpose and scope, and then concludes

with an annotated audit inventory of outcomes of the recommendations made at the 2007 IPTT

strategic planning process.

The establishment of IPTT

In January 2001 a “Strategy and Action Plan for Promoting Indigenous Fruits in Namibia”

was prepared by CRIAA SA-DC for the Directorate of Research and Training within the

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development (MAWRD).

The proposed vision was:

“Stable and sustainable production systems and long-term markets have been

established for a range of indigenous fruits and/or fruit products, on terms

advantageous to the livelihoods and food security of rural harvesters and producers

in Namibia.”

A multi-stakeholder indigenous fruits task team (IFTT) was established in April 2000 to

“coordinate a strategy and oversee its flexible and responsive tactical implementation by a

diverse group of stakeholders”. Grassroots representation (rural producers) was identified

as an especially important challenge.

The 2001 IFTT Strategy and Action Plan was reviewed by CRIAA SA-DC in May 2003 with

support from the EU National Agricultural Support Services Programme (NASSP). Eleven

recommendations were made by this review, including a broadening of IFTT’s focus.

In May 2003 the IFTT changed its name to the Indigenous Plants Task Team (IPTT) to include

consideration of non-fruiting parts of plants. The role of the IPTT became further

differentiated as it was recognised that while organised groups such as the Devil’s Claw

Working Group (DCWG) could represent their own interests outside of IPTT, DCWG would

benefit from participating in IPTT for purposes of information exchange. As other

representative groupings, for example the Hoodia Working Group and the Eudafano

Womens’ Cooperative, have become participants in IPTT, so too has the “shape” of IPTT

changed to accommodate participants.

Traditional crops such as Mahangu and Sorghum were addressed in a separate task team

that was similarly financially supported by the Government of Namibia.

In the first three years of IFTT (2000 – 2003) the Government of Namibia (through MAWF)

allocated the committee an amount of $2,169,937.00. (see diagram one below). In the

2003/04 financial year the Government allocated a further $1,923,926.00 from the Useful

Plants Development Project (UPDP), bringing the total government contribution in 2003 to

Page 17 of 97

$4,093,863.00. In 2004 IPTT received an amount of $982,150 from the National Agriculture

Sector Support Programme (NASSP) funded jointly by the European Union, the European

Development Fund and the Government of the Republic of Nambia (GRN). In the five years

since NASSP funding (2005 – 2010) the Namibian Agronomic Board records receipt of a total

of $300,000.00 from the Government of Namibia, and a further amount of $840,000 from

GTZ.

Figure one provides a summary overview of income received by IPTT.

Figure One: IPTT, UPDP, NASSP and GTZ Funds Received (2000 – 2010).

(as reported by NAB).

A stretched value chain

In the ten years from 2000 the IPTT and IFTT before it have received more $6,466 million in

project monies – primarily through government. The amount of money allocated for

disbursement through the IPTT has diminished significantly over the last five years.

The sector as a whole has a relatively low donor-funding absorptive capacity, with one or

two key organisations able to utilise most of the product development, research and other

monies made available to develop the sector. The existence of IPTT has enabled some

stakeholders to solicit and receive increased financial support directly from donor

organisations for activities consistent with priorities as endorsed by the IPTT.

Page 18 of 97

The export value of products from indigenous plants in 2008 and 2009 fluctuated between

$13 and $24 million per annum1, which is in the vicinity of 100 times smaller than export

revenue from cattle and small stock2. In GDP terms export revenue from indigenous natural

plants and their products is economically very small (0.03%).

It is argued by some stakeholders that the IPTT and activities around it have added

substantial value to Namibia’s broader economy and well-being in contributing to:

Further developing product value chains and linking organised groups therein;

Creating the perception of Namibia as promoting sustainably harvested products within

stable, relatively well managed and equitable supply chains;

engaging more than 8000 organised producers;

enabling widespread distribution of small but important supplemental incomes to poor

rural people with fragile livelihood options .

Export value chains in Namibia are constrained and narrow – with Namibia ranking 131st out

of 139 in the 2010 country-ranking of the World Economic Forum. Generally, this means

that exporters are primarily engaged in resource extraction with limited attention to

product design, marketing sales, logistics, and after sales services.

While export value of the indigenous plants sector is relatively small, levels of research,

development and innovation supported through IPTT and elsewhere do suggest this sub-

sector is more advanced than many in Namibia with respect to its reach into value chain

development. The relatively low export value of indigenous plant products does however

suggest that, unless there is a sudden positive development or discovery in the sector, there

is limited space for additional role-players and value chain breadth will remain constrained

in the foreseeable future.

At the IPTT strategic planning meeting of October 2007 the primary plenary presentation

was: “Seven years of flexibility: IPTT strategy revisited”. In summary, allowing the broadest

possible scope for IPTT operations had enabled “flexibility” and “responsiveness” to “market

signals”. An assessment of circumstances in 2007 suggested the following key strategic

considerations:

there was a need for a focus on regulation of supply in “new niche markets”;

more local champions were needed to promote the development of supply chains;

1 Namibia’s 2009 GDP is recorded by the World Economic Forum as being at U.S.$9,5 billion – or around

Namibian $68 billion. Agriculture contributes 9% to GDP. Indigenous plant product export figures quoted from

INP Market Bulletin, September 2010. 2 According to the Namibian Meat Board, cattle and small stock exports in 2005 amounted to N$1614 million.

Page 19 of 97

the “core group of people”

in IPTT were experiencing

“development fatigue and

some new people were

needed to take IPTT

forward”.

The purpose and scope of

IPTT

The purpose of the IPTT has been

to develop “a coordinated

approach and strategy for the

implementation of an

economically sustainable

promotion of indigenous plants in

Namibia”. In June 2005 a three-

page terms of reference was

developed for the IPTT, outlining

the objective of IPTT as being to:

“promote the sustainable

utilisation of Namibia’s indigenous

plant resources for:

greater household food

security;

Agricultural diversification;

Income employment and

livelihood opportunities;

Agro-industrial

development.”

The “main task” of the IPTT (see

box on right) was to have been

the coordination and

implementation of a national

strategic for the promotion of

indigenous plants and products

derived from indigenous plants. To this end twelve very broad functions were described for

which IPTT was to take responsibility for implementing.

The IPTT “SCOPE OF WORK”

(from the 2005 Terms of Reference)

The main task of the IPTT is to develop, seek a mandate

from relevant Ministries for, and co-ordinate the

implementation of a national strategy for the promotion

of indigenous plants and products derived from

indigenous plants. To this end the IPTT shall:

1. Facilitate a consultative process involving as wide a

range of stakeholders as possible

2. Ensure that the national strategy for indigenous plant

promotion is compatible with existing national policies as

relating to agriculture, forestry, food security, wildlife,

sustainable development, science and technology,

conservation and biodiversity

3. Provide input for the formulation of national policy

4. Promote the integration of its work in the research,

development, marketing, training and other extension

work of Ministries and other organisations

5. Receive, scrutinise, circulate, comment on and endorse

research proposals related to indigenous plants

6. Mobilise human and financial resources, prioritise the

use of such resources (which shall include the right to

approve the spending of budgets placed under its control)

and manage projects or programmes on behalf of other

institutions

7. Cause financial record keeping and investment to be

done for the funds under the IPTT jurisdiction.

8. Act as a national contact point for donors interested in

supporting activities related to the promotion of

indigenous plants, for collaborative research and for

other forms of collaboration regarding indigenous plants

9. Organise regular meetings of and communication

between stakeholders

10. Establish a central national information-sharing

system and database on indigenous plants with economic

potential to

- identify and address gaps in knowledge

- research and gather information internationally e.g.

scientific and technological development, market

intelligence

- collect information on what is done by whom in

Namibia and the results achieved

- disseminate information to stakeholders

11. Draft and periodically review the national strategy

and its own terms of reference

12. Protect intellectual property rights and assist in the

prevention of bio-piracy.

Page 20 of 97

Over the past five years various changes in internal and external strategic contexts related

to IPTT have suggested the need for changes in the functioning and structure of IPTT. The

IPTT has been experiencing what have been described by some respondents as “blockages”.

Externally, global economic conditions and developments in the natural products sector

(regionally and internationally) have also invited consideration of what IPTT should be

focussing upon in the future.

Significant energy was invested through IPTT and some stakeholders in the development of

the “Newco” concept which included the establishment of a primary producers’ trust. This

proposal was extensively canvassed and discussed during 2007, but did not go further.

Different stakeholders have developed differing expectations of what it is that IPTT should

be doing. Some stakeholders in government believe that IPTT has fulfilled a purpose and is

no longer necessary in what is now a more mature INP sector.

Resources made available through the IPTT have contributed capacity at important nodes in

value chain creation. The functioning of IPTT and the disbursement of funds it has been able

to attract has contributed to the achievement of all four objectives listed above.

It is reported by various stakeholders that the indigenous plants sector and its value chain

has developed remarkably over the past ten years. Disappointment is also expressed by

some that a hoped-for boom or “magic bullet” did not materialise in propelling the sector to

the potential that many stakeholders believed it had, or still has. Expectations of harvesters

and producer organisations remain higher than the benefits being generated in the sector.

The IPTT is reported as having played an important “steering” and “coordinating” role in the

promotion of the indigenous natural products sector in Namibia. The IPTT meets at least

once on a quarterly basis and to date has convened 63 meetings. During this time it has

played an important role in the design and implementation of numerous projects, research

and marketing initiatives. The IPTT has also from time to time established sub-committees

tasked to deal with specific matters related to the management or project aspects of the

forum.

In October 2007, recognising the need to evolve and to be in a better position to serve the

interests of the INP sector in Namibia, a Strategic Planning Meeting of stakeholders was

held. At this meeting, participants reiterated the need for the continued existence of the

IPTT, but also recognised the need for changes in its organisational structure. A number of

far reaching recommendations in this respect were made although they have, for a variety

of reasons, not been implemented.

Audit of organisation responses to 2007 strategic plan

This section comprises an audit of the key recommendations adopted at the October 2007

IPTT Strategic Planning meeting.

Page 21 of 97

On a purely technical level, no minutes were seen in which the voting members of the IPTT

formally adopted or approved the recommendations made. Given that this audit is being

requested by IPTT it is however assumed that these recommendations were accepted.

BODY ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES AUDIT QUESTIONS

IPTT

Hold AGM

Elect Executive Committee

Give mandate to Executive Committee

1. Is AGM held? 2. Is Executive Committee elected? 3. Is mandate to Exec Committee

minuted?

STATUS CURRENT

RELEVANCE COMMENT / RECOMMENDATION

1. Is AGM held?

No AGM is held.

Highly relevant

The AGM should come to be seen as the most important meeting at which IPTT leadership reflects upon and accounts to its members for activities and expenditure in the past year, endorses the proposed priorities for the year ahead, and elects a management committee to pursue these priorities.

2. Is Executive Committee elected?

Not implemented

Highly relevant

A representative management committee is viewed by stakeholders as a key means of improving accountable management, and making separate space for more effective networking and information sharing meetings. The management committee could effectively manage bureaucracy and administration in separate meetings.

3. Is mandate

to Exec

Committee

minuted?

No

Highly relevant

IPTT has mostly operated by a ‘consensus’ developed through long-term relationships of key role-players. It would provide for enhanced clarity on roles and responsibilities if mandates and strategic direction given to elected committees was formally minuted –with and monitoring and six-monthly reporting back to the membership on the status of efforts to fulfil these mandates.


EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE

Give mandate to Secretariat

Oversee secretariat

Review of proposals and budgets

Voting on the use of funds

4. Is mandate to Secretariat described and given?

5. How does Exec Com oversee Secretariat?

6. Does Exec Com meet and record decisions re proposals and budgets?

7. How does decision-making on fund allocation take place?

Page 22 of 97

STATUS CURRENT


4. Is mandate to Secretariat described and given?

NO T CLEARLY

Highly relevant

The IPTT ToR mention that Secretarial services will be provided by an approved institution. The role and responsibility of NAB in managing finances is not described. New ToR should provide for clearer description of roles, responsibilities and accountability of appointed secretariat and financial management arrangements. The Chairperson of IPTT should be formally mandated as the accounting officer responsible to Government and to IPTT membership.

5. How does Exec Com oversee Secretariat?

DOES NOT

Relevant

The Secretariat is located within NBRI and is formally answerable through the IPTT Chairperson who is located within MAWF. The MCA secondee to NBRI is answerable in the same way. It would facilitate the work and delegation functions of the management committee if the job descriptions and levels of responsibility and authority of the secretariat staff were further developed in writing.

6. Does Exec Com meet and record decisions re proposals and budgets?

DOES NOT

Highly relevant

In the absence of a functioning management committee, these deliberations are made at general meetings (to the expressed frustration of members). Decision-making in a management committee can be guided by priorities annually endorsed by the AGM – and as caucused by elected representatives with their particular constituencies. The management committee could meet quarterly to make decisions, receive reports and monitor progress. The broader membership could meet twice a year to:

a) Receive reports back, and elect a committee at the AGM

b) To participate in networking and information sharing activities as organised by the committee and secretariat.

7. How does decision-making on fund allocation take place?

No standard process, but final decision is recorded at a general meeting

Relevant

The management committee must be mandated to take decisions in keeping with annually agreed programmatic priorities. Provision should be made for broader consultation by committee members with their sector constituents in the event the decision might be a) potentially controversial; b) addressing issues outside the agreed priority areas. If IPTT has AGM-mandated priorities, the elected committee should (if needed) be enabled to solicit or facilitate additional funds for their achievement. Consideration might be given for the development of an IPTT responsive small-grants funding facility ie <$50,000.00. In the event of larger grants to initiatives or programmes in the sector, IPTT could consider playing an endorsing and/or secondary monitoring role for the implementing organisations

Page 23 of 97

who should sign such contracts directly with the donor or contracting government agency. Ie. It should not be the role of IPTT to manage or give primary oversight to the implementation of big programmes and projects. It should rather be the role of IPTT to promote the alignment of any funding available to agreed sectoral priorities; to encourage coherence across interventions.


SECRETARIAT

Day to Day running

Write proposals

Source funding

Support to service providers and producers

Identify and link with ERSC’s and/or other groups/community

Support ERSC’s

Oversee staff/focal point at ERSC’s

Organise meetings

Gather and disseminate information

Administration

8. What resources available to Secretariat – (full-time etc)

9. Who writes proposals? 10. Who sources funding? 11. Availability and quality of support to

service providers and producers? 12. Status of engagement with ERSCs and

other stakeholders 13. Role and capacity of Secretariat in

organising meetings; administration, information sharing

Secretariat

STATUS CURRENT


8. What resources available to Secretariat –

Relevant

A senior researcher in Plant Product Development at NBRI could potentially be engaged full-time in directed IPTT activities. A full-time secondment from MCA to the IPTT Secretariat is available until 2014, with special emphasis on the development of information systems and secretariat services. The currently available secretariat resources are an important asset to IPTT – and could be deployed in an even more targeted manner in the event specific plans and events are agreed to by IPTT management committee.

9. Who writes proposals?

10. Who sources funding?

Relevant

The secretariat does not currently develop proposals for funding. However, if there were specific IPTT events or activities identified, the secretariat could be deployed to develop any proposals necessary, and to work with committee members in engaging resource providers within and without government.

Page 24 of 97

11. Availability and quality of support to service providers and producers?

Highly relevant

The current secretariat and many IPTT members see a positive scope and need for growing the information provision and networking role of the secretariat. The INP Market Bulletin is one case in point. The role of IPTT as a primary national platform for information and networking services in the indigenous plants sector is seen by most stakeholders as the most important function it can effectively serve.

12. Status of engagement with ERSCs and other stakeholders

Relevant idea but not practicable

Eco-regional satellite centres were mooted as a means of ‘mini’ regional IPTTs that would feed into national IPTT – as a hoped-for means of facilitating stronger “grass-roots” participation. The capacity and financing needed to enable the effective running of such structures was a) not available; b) could not be sustained within government budgets.

13. Role and capacity of Secretariat in organising meetings; admin, information sharing

Relevant

The current secretariat resources available to IPTT are an important and adequate foundation. These resources could be more effectively and systematically deployed through the development of annual IPTT priority areas and work-plans which respond to the information and knowledge priorities of IPTT members.

The following section responds to the implementation of four “functions” as defined by the

strategic planning meeting: supply chain management and development; outreach;

relationships; capacity building.

This section of the summary recommendations from the strategic planning meeting does

not clearly distinguish “who” in IPTT is responsible for the performance of these envisaged

functions, where the resources will come from, and what the actual activities and time-

frames would be. In many respects, the following is a listing of things that should happen for

the existence of a robust INP sector.

This lack of clarity on organisational boundaries, roles, responsibilities and planning has led

to some confusion, and also to limited implementation.

Supply Chain Management and Development

STRAT PLAN AMBITION Comment

1. IPTT to provide market

information, undertake

market development,

engage in fair trade

issues and technology

14. It is reported that while these issues are occasionally touched

upon in IPTT meetings, there is no systematic engagement with

other entities or stakeholders to discuss these matters from the

point of view of “the IPTT”. The recent first edition of INP

Market Bulletin is seen as a positive example of the kind of

Page 25 of 97

development.

2. IPTT to make

recommendations on

policy (new and existing)

through a consultative

process with all

stakeholders.

3. Each product should be

evaluated and

prioritised based on

market potential,

market information and

market development.

contribution that IPTT can make.

15. There have been few opportunities for commenting in the

development or reconsideration of government policy. Some

members of IPTT participated in a separate government-created

structure (Plant Sector Development Forum) in contributing to

the development of the MAWF 2008 – 2013 strategic plan.

Government does not see IPTT as a primary vehicle for multi-

stakeholder policy engagement.

16. The so-called “pipeline” approach has prioritised attention on a

range of products. The rationale and decision-making process

for this is not clear to most in IPTT.

General comment: While most Stakeholders do not see a primary role for IPTT in taking

responsibility for implementing the above-described activities, a process of sector-wide

prioritisation might mean that IPTT endorses proposals by organisations capable of taking on agreed

priority activities. It might also mean that IPTT facilitates information-sharing and other partnership-

forming and coordination activities in support of member organisations addressing these priorities.

Outreach

STRAT PLAN AMBITION COMMENT

1. Formation and structure of ERSC’s should be based on needs

dependent on identified demand, interest, producers and

resources/products available for commercialisation.

2. The ERSC’s need support to fulfil the role of linking producers

to the IPTT.

3. The need for a focal point (co-ordinator) in ERSC’s must be

based on resources and identified activities – this could be a

part-time or full-time position, or it could be linked to other

organizations that are active in the area.

4. Lobby for recognition of IPTT’s (ERSC’s) work at government

level so that work on the development of indigenous plants

can be incorporated into their yearly work plans and budgets

made available to carry out this work. This will help to

promote the work of ERSC’s and ensure the participation of

the Ministries regional staff.

The idea of eco-regional

satellite centres was

developed and some project

work was funded in this

regard during 2004 and 2005.

The experience has been that

while there may be one or two

locally-based champions,

there is insufficient “energy”

(passion and potential

income) to justify the required

levels of financial and

management input for this to

become institutionally

sustainable.

Page 26 of 97

Relationships


1. IPTT’s strongest relationship and

basis of the programme is to look

after the interests of the producers

and facilitate the development of a

link between the producers and the

private sectors.

2. Once an “industry” has been

established around a particular

product direct IPTT support should

diminish but the IPTT should ensure

that a suitable system with the

relevant industry bodies is in place to

facilitate their continued

involvement with the IPTT.

3. The IPTT’s role is to coordinate, help

reduce conflict of interest,

duplication and overlapping of work

done by different organisations.

4. Facilitate the capacity within

producer groups to work with the

private sector.

5. Consider introducing a levy

mechanism for sustaining industry

for specific services to producers.

There are differences of perspective among IPTT

stakeholders as to what makes one group “primary

producers” and another “private sector”.

Participation by harvesters and marginal sectoral role-

players in IPTT is understandably very limited.

IPTT has contributed to the development of Marula as a

product, but implementation has been by EWC, not

IPTT. CRIAA SA-DC (not IPTT) has played key roles in

supporting the development of KMS, and Ximenia,

while IRDNC has acted on Commiphora. As concerns

Devils Claw, IPTT has had very little influence on that

industry.

Despite IPTT duplication of efforts continue, particularly

by those role-players who do not participate in IPTT.

Other than through sharing information and enabling

communication, IPTT as an entity is not in a position to

contribute meaningfully to reducing conflicts of

interest, or to facilitate capacity of producer groups to

work with the private sector.

IPTT is not in a position legally, financially or structurally

to develop levies for the sustenance of unspecified

services to producers.

Capacity Development


1. IPTT should identify the capacity

building gaps and needs and develop

a comprehensive strategy to

facilitate capacity building.

2. The capacity of the IPTT should be

enhanced to fulfil its proposed roles.

3. IPTT to facilitate information sharing

and dissemination including the

This did not happen.

IPTT does have human resources and some finances at

its disposal. These could be more effectively deployed.

The secondment of a full-time MCA-funded person IN

2010 to the IPTT Secretariat has significant potential to

Page 27 of 97

establishment of a database,

newsletter, publications etc.

4. IPTT should document approaches

that have worked including lessons

learned and best practices in

supporting development of industry.

establish and develop An important legacy with respect

to the information sharing, database and dissemination

roles.

This important task has not happened. Much of the

institutional memory and knowledge generated out of

IPTT resides within some key individuals.

Page 28 of 97

4. Common lessons from similar experience

This chapter reflects upon some common challenges facing structures such as IPTT. The

terms of reference for this assignment suggested that the experiences of other similar multi-

stakeholder groups in southern Africa be researched in order to learn from these

experiences. Research conducted indicates that there are very few vaguely similar

organisations. It is also apparent that national context and differences in these “similar”

groups in other countries (for example South Africa) are so big that limited value would arise

from such a comparative study.

There are however two important characteristics relevant to IPTT for which there are useful

bodies of knowledge from other experience.

The previous chapter addressed the purpose of IPTT. The literature and experience of

management and organisation development has some useful insights with respect to the

way in which IPTT is structured and how it functions in order to promote achievement of its

purpose.

IPTT is also multi-stakeholder structure. Twenty years’ of experience3 of multi-stakeholder

structures in the natural resource management sector has distilled some simple but

important principles for the effective functioning of these structures.

This chapter outlines some common experiences relevant to multi-stakeholder structures

like IPTT.

‘The nature of the beast’: Organisation structure and purpose

The design and structure of any organisation should ideally be “purpose-built”. By purpose-

built it is meant that the structure should be optimal for helping the organisation best

achieve its purpose within the environment that it operates in. As a multi-stakeholder

committee in which each of the member organisations has its own structures and primary

loyalties, IPTT is an example of a new paradigm of 21st Century organisational forms.

It has made sense for the IPTT – with its relatively small “core group” operating across a

wide span of the value chain – to shy away from allocating specific and specialised roles,

authorities and tasks to particular leaders. Modern management science recognises that

traditional hierarchical organisations are not as effective in a modern fast-paced

communication-driven world. Instead of specialisation and control, successful organisations

are now promoting flexibility, integration and innovation.

Stacey (1996) describes “self organisation” as:

3 Starting in advance of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992.

Page 29 of 97

“the spontaneous formation of interest groups and coalitions around specific issues,

communication about those issues, cooperation and the formation of consensus on

and commitment to those issues”(p.333).

IPTT has, in many respects, been “self organising”, open to its environment, allowing for

responsiveness to opportunities. The energy that has driven and renewed this dissipative4

structure has been provided by some key individuals and also the availability of finances.

Organisations such as this typically act in “spurts” in direct response to injections of energy.

While they can make important contributions, such forms of organisation do face the risk of

“burning out”, as can be read from the proceedings of the IPTT 2007 Strategic Planning:

“An explanation of development fatigue was given including the fact that there are a number of issues, projects and people working under the IPTT umbrella which is currently a steering committee and information sharing body and not an implementation body. Participants at the IPTT meetings are getting decreasing returns on their effort and so are coming less to the meetings. Thus, often there is the lack of a quorum at meetings, resulting in the IPTT being unable to take/make decisions on issues, contributing to the general unworkability of the current IPTT arrangement. (page 8 of the Strategic Planning Meeting Proceedings).

The absence of quorums at IPTT meetings has been most often due to representatives of

Government Departments not attending. Government representatives, as well as those

from most other organisations participating in IPTT are not familiar with or resourced to

operate in the open and flexible manner that IPTT has been operating in. In short, attending

IPTT meetings and engaging in activities that may emerge from such meetings was not

understood as being sufficiently aligned to the priorities of their own job descriptions, and

the priorities of their organisations.

There are a number of recognised factors for the functioning of effective self-organising

teams:

o Senge (1994) and others point out that approach of “flexibility” and “self-

organisation” still needs to have foundations, especially a common purpose, shared

core values, agreed operating principles, resources and plans.

o It is essential that all members invest energy in sharing learning and sharing of

experiences to make sense of the world you are engaging. In other words, attention

must be paid to the proper functioning of feedback loops - monitoring and jointly

developing responses to recognised changes.

o Flexible self-organising teams do develop plans and set priorities – they cut their

cloth according to the resources available – human and finances and time.

4 A system with open boundaries which is freely giving off energy into its environment. The system stays alive

for as long as it keeps receiving more energy than it gives out.

Page 30 of 97

Feedback from interviews conducted suggests that IPTT tried to become an entity whose

“flexibility” would enable intervention all along the indigenous plants value chain as and

when opportunities and issues arose. Risks were taken, innovative interventions were

pioneered in the face of limited resources (people and money) on the ground. The interview

feedback does however have a recurring narrative of “IPTT” spreading itself too wide and

too thin. Too many opportunities were pursued at

once by key people, and not enough human resources

have been available to maximise the potential impact

of each of those opportunities.

Very strong and consistent feedback points to IPTT

meetings having become stuck as a vehicle for

processing bureaucracy and administration, with very

little space for reflecting, sharing and jointly learning

about and discussing the indigenous plant sector the

members all operate in.

Experience of cross-sectoral multi-stakeholder

partnerships related to natural resources

management is extensive. The underlying principle is that sustainable development is only

possible through comprehensive and widespread cross-sector collaboration. Working

separately or in isolation, competing with each other and duplicating work is wasting

valuable resources. When you do not work with other partners in the sector and understand

their perspective, it becomes easier to blame “them” for problems that you might

experience.

Each of the sectors brings different value and experience to multi-stakeholder partnerships:

Sector Core Business Main attributes

Public Sector

The rule of law by:

Creating frameworks for economic, political and social rights and generating political commitment to development;

Developing regulations and standard-setting mechanisms as well as adherence to international obligations;

Providing public services to ensure basic needs and rights are met.

“Rights” driven, the public sector provides access, information, stability and legitimacy

Business Sector

Investment and trade by:

Creating goods and services

Providing employment opportunities,

“Profits” driven, the business sector is

A significant number of

respondents in the interviews

and questionnaires identified a

need for IPTT to be more of a

vehicle for multi-stakeholder

members to collectively reflect

on and create shared

knowledge of the events and

developments in the

indigenous plants sector.

Page 31 of 97

innovation and economic growth

Maximising profits for investors to ensure further investment that will allow the business to continue to innovate

inventive, productive, highly focussed and fast

Civil Society

Social development by:

Creating opportunities for individual growth and creativity

Providing support and services for those in need or excluded from mainstream society

Acting as guardians of the public good

“Values” driven, civil society is responsive, vocal, inclusive and imaginative

(adapted from: Tennyson, R. (2003). The Partnering Toolbook. International Business

Leaders Forum (IBLF) and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN).

Successful multi-stakeholder partnerships are characterised by the following features:

1. They deal with a clearly described context and a specifically defined set of problems or challenges – know what you are focussing on and choose your priorities;

2. They involve an explicitly defined (membership is clear) and evolving set of stakeholders with common (but often conflicting) interests – know who you are working with and your terms of engagement;

3. They work across different sectors and scales – from local, through national to international – choose your main scale of focus;

4. These partnerships follow an agreed yet dynamic process and time frame - be flexible, but set clear goals and targets;

5. They are guided by negotiated and understood rules of interaction – have clear and agreed organisational procedures that all have to follow;

6. They deal consciously with power and conflict among stakeholders and sectors – provide possibilities for resolving issues of dominance, distrust and exclusion;

7. They engage stakeholders in learning processes (not just negotiation over fixed positions) – ensure sharing of information and building a common understanding;

8. They aim for a balance between of bottom up and top down approaches; 9. They aim to contribute towards effective institutional change – in this case the

development of the INP sector in Namibia.

Adapted from: Facilitating Complex Multi-Stakeholder Processes: A Social Learning

Perspective (Woodhill, J. (2004).

There are three core principles recognised as key for successful cross-sector partnerships:

1. Equity: recognising the wide divergences of power, resources and influence of

stakeholders, “equity” does not mean “equality”. Equity implies the equal right to be

at the table and a recognition and respect of the value and validity of member

contributions beyond money and public influence;

Page 32 of 97

2. Transparency: Openness and honesty in working relationships are necessary to build

trust. Only with transparent working can a partnership be properly accountable to

partner donors and other stakeholders.

3. Mutual Benefit: If all partners are expected to contribute they should also be

entitled to benefit. Healthy partnerships work towards achieving specific benefits for

each partner – over and above the common benefits to all partners. This way, there

is sustained commitment.

5. Recommendations

This Chapter retains the recommendations made in the draft report and presented to the

stakeholder workshop on 29th September. These recommendations emerge from and are a

synthesis of the “largest common denominator” positions communicated during the

interviews and web-based questionnaire process.

The stakeholder workshop appointed a task-team to further work on the recommendations

that were endorsed, and to arrive at agreed positions and further details on issues of

structure.

In addition to the twenty-eight semi-structured interviews conducted, the web-based

questionnaire asked specific questions with respect to future functioning of IPTT. Of the

twenty-five people invited to respond, 18 did – providing a significant response rate of 72%.

The full data can be viewed in Appendix Five.

Table Two: Respondents to the web-based questionnaire.

Page 33 of 97

Purpose and priorities of IPTT

An overwhelming majority of interviewees expressed the view that IPTT needs to facilitate

more information-sharing and networking opportunities for role-players in the sector to be

able to develop common knowledge and understanding of sectoral developments. This

perspective was endorsed at the stakeholder workshop.

This point of view is supported by the two graphs in Table Three where a notable majority of

responses prioritised networking and information sharing activities.

Table Three: Purpose and priorities for IPTT

Page 34 of 97

Organisational structure and management arrangements

IPTT is not a formally or legally constituted body. While IPTT is recognised by the

Government of Namibia which chairs the body and has provided funding for it, the absence

of a formally recognised constituting document with a description of purpose, membership,

roles, responsibilities and procedures presents legal risks and operational challenges to the

future effective functioning of IPTT.

The Secretariat services provided by GRN – and more recently also via MCA - to IPTT

through the NBRI are a critical and important resource enabling institutional continuity and

adding value;

IPTT and its key stakeholders should work towards:

Transforming itself into a membership-based multi-stakeholder platform with clearly

defined governance and operational procedures, which include:

o The definition of membership and procedures for application, confirmation and

removal of members;

o The holding of an Annual General Meeting and election of a representative

management committee mandated to conduct the administration and financial

management affairs of IPTT separate from any general meetings of IPTT;

Page 35 of 97

o That shortly before the AGM a day-long strategic planning meeting for the

management committee (and their alternate representatives – i.e. a maximum of 14

people) is held to:

o Take stock is taken of achievements and shortcomings of IPTT during the year;

o Note key opportunities and threats to the sector;

o Outline key focus and funding priority areas for the year ahead.

o Circulate a summary report and proposal to all IPTT member organisations prior to

the AGM.

o The identity or “brand” of IPTT is promoted as a facilitating (not implementing)

body that seeks to act in the common values-based interests of developing the

sector further;

o That it remains possible for the duly elected IPTT committee to be flexible and

responsive in transparently allocating any available funds by way of small grants

towards organisations and events which are aligned to and consistent with

annually agreed priority areas and action plans;

That government representation with respect to IPTT management matters become

rationalised to three representatives on IPTT, with one each from MAWF, MET and MTI;

o That the names of Government representatives on the IPTT management

committee are confirmed annually at the AGM of IPTT.

That Government continues to Chair the IPTT, and that the Chairperson be nominated

by Government;

That other government ministries (e.g. Education) be invited to participate in IPTT

networking activities and consultations as and when appropriate;

That between five and seven other voting representatives excluding the three from

GRN) become annually elected to the management committee of IPTT;

o That these representatives are elected as far as practicably possible on a

representational basis by their own sectors: academia; private sector; primary

producers; organised communities; service providers/NGOs;

o That donor representatives be invited to participate when needs be on an ex-

officio basis;

o That NBRI continues to provide support and secretariat services to the IPTT.

Page 36 of 97

The above recommendations were discussed and accepted “in-principle” by workshop

participants. There was energetic discussion by stakeholders on proposed models of

representation on the IPTT Management Committee.

It was agreed that the Management Committee should be chaired by Government. The

Government, through the Chair of IPTT, proposed that the Management Committee be

comprised of between five to seven members, with direct sectoral representation as

follows:

1. Public Sector

2. Academia

3. Associations of harvesters, collectors, community-based organisations

4. Processors / Value-add services

5. NGOs / service providers

A key element of the motivation for sectoral representation was to promote opportunities

for equitable control and direction of the resources available to IPTT, and particularly to

address the previous absence of direct representation by harvesters and collectors.

There were various forms of counter-proposal from academia, CBOs and NGOs which

focussed on the argument that the Management Committee would be mandated by the

membership to perform management functions and that, except for the Chair appointed by

GRN, members should be free to vote on representatives by merit – people who could be

trusted by the membership to represent broad interests, and people known to be able to

deliver. The idea of Management Committee representatives being appointed or allocated

on a sectoral basis was not supported by some stakeholders.

There appeared to be limited space and time for a compromise solution to emerge. Neither

of the parties holding positions was willing to deviate from the fundamental principle of

their proposals. The GRN indicated that they were firm on the principle of sectoral

representation but would accept a committee as large as seven representatives.

An “Interim Task Team” was nominated to finalise the outstanding matters and present

these ahead of the 65th IPTT meeting on 13th October.

The task team schedule was as follows:

1. Meet in the IPTT Chairperson’s Office at 11h00 on Friday 1st October to map out the

scope and key tasks;

2. Develop a consensus proposal on the structuring and functioning of IPTT as a multi-

stakeholder task team;

3. Circulate this proposal to all workshop participants by 08h30 on Monday 11th

October;

Page 37 of 97

4. Present the proposals for discussion and adoption by the 65th IPTT meeting to be

held on Wednesday 13th October. These proposals and their resolution and adoption

by the IPTT meeting will be the priority focus of the IPTT meeting.

Comments on financial and organisational sustainability.

The contribution by the GRN to IPTT continues to play a critical role in its sustenance. The

sustenance of IPTT must be separated from the implementation of projects and programmes by

other government and non-government actors in the sector who participate in IPTT.

The operational costs of IPTT are relatively low for it to be able to provide an effective platform from

which stakeholders can share information and collectively act to address specific commonly agreed

priorities. IPTT’s chances of future financial and institutional sustainability will be enhanced through

a process of organisation development in which IPTT demonstrates its value through:

Developing a clear purpose which aligns to, supports and informs the achievement of

national government priorities in the sector;

Developing operational and management procedures that enable a process of results-based

management with respect to the achievement of the focussed operation of a multi-

stakeholder-owned platform;

Being able to monitor and document its achievements and impact in contributing to the

public good, national priorities and strengthening of the sector.

Page 38 of 97

Appendix One: Terms of Reference

1. Summary

In early 2000 the Indigenous Fruit Task Team (IFTT), a multi-stakeholder forum, was created to

develop a co-ordinated approach and strategy for the implementation of an economically

sustainable promotion of indigenous fruit in Namibia. The name was changed at the Strategic

Planning Workshop in 2003 to the Indigenous Plant Task Team (IPTT) to reflect its widened mandate

beyond only fruits to include all indigenous plants. The purpose of the IPTT is to develop and

coordinate the implementation of a national strategy for the promotion of products from indigenous

plants and fruits in Namibia. Since its formation, the IPTT has made a significant contribution to the

development of the indigenous natural products industry in Namibia, notwithstanding constraints of

funding and human resources. Nonetheless, developments in the INP sector imply that changes in

the way the IPTT is structured and organised need to evolve for it to be able to continue to play a

leading role in the development of INPs.

This document sets out the Terms of Reference for an Organisational audit of the IPTT.

2. Background Information

2.1 Namibia’s Millennium Challenge Account Compact

The Millennium Challenge Account Namibia (MCA-N) Compact makes provision for grant funding for

public investments in Education, Tourism and Agriculture. The Compact was signed on 28 July 2008

between the government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) and the United State Government, acting

through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The Compact will make available US$304.5

million for development in these target sectors, over and above current Government allocations and

assistance from other development partners for a period of five (5) years.

The Goal of the Compact is to reduce poverty through ensuring economic growth in the identified

sectors. To accomplish this Goal, the MCA-N Programme aims to achieve the following objectives:

1. Increase the competence of the Namibian workforce (knowledge, skills and attitude); and

2. Increase the productivity of agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises in rural areas.

The Compact aims to improve the quality of education and training for underserved populations,

and attempts to capitalise on Namibia’s comparative advantages to increase the incomes of poor

Namibians, predominantly in the northern areas of the country.

Please visit www.mcanamibia.org for detailed Project Descriptions.

2.2 The MCA-N Management Structure

In terms of the Compact, MCA-N is the “accountable entity,” responsible for the overall

management of the Compact’s implementation. MCA-N is the accountable entity within the

National Planning Commission (Office of the President), comprised of a Board and a Programme

Management Unit. The MCA-N Board provides oversight and strategic guidance and is ultimately

Page 39 of 97

responsible for the Programme’s success. The MCA-N Management Unit is responsible for the day-

to-day implementation of the Compact, including programme management, financial management

and reporting, and coordination of monitoring and evaluation. The Programme is legally governed

by the Compact and its principle documents as supplemental agreements. For additional

information, please visit www.mcanamibia.org.

2.3 Indigenous Natural Products Activity

The Indigenous Natural Products (INP) Activity is a component of the MCA-N Agriculture Project and

in itself has three sub-activities, (1) Support to Producer & Processor Organisations (PPO), (2) an

Innovation Fund and (3) Capacity support to the INP industry through the National Botanical

Research Institute (NBRI) and the IPTT with the primary focus on the development and maintenance

of an information system, including market data, on indigenous natural products. MCA-N and the

Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry (MAWF) have entered into an Implementing Partnership

Agreement (IPA) to support the implementation of the INP Activity.

The goal of the INP Activity is to increase incomes through economic opportunities for INP

stakeholders through improved organisational, business and technical capacities along the value

chain. The INP Activity is expected to increase incomes for up to 9,000 primary producers and their

households benefiting approximately 45,000 individuals.

The IPTT will play an important consultative role in the implementation of the MCA-N INP Activity.

2.4 Indigenous Plant Task Team

The Indigenous Fruit Task Team (IFTT) was formed after the first Promotion of Indigenous Fruit

workshop in April 2000 to develop a co-ordinated approach and strategy for the implementation of

an economically sustainable promotion of indigenous fruit in Namibia. In the course of its work the

IFTT subsequently encountered a need to also include non-fruiting parts of indigenous plants. At the

Second National Indigenous Fruit Stakeholders Workshop held in Tsumeb in May 2003, participants

mandated the IFTT to change its name to the Indigenous Plant Task Team (IPTT) to expand the focus

of its work to include other indigenous plants. Terms of Reference for the IPTT were been

subsequently drawn up.

The IPTT is a multi-stakeholder forum chaired by the Directorate of Agriculture Research and

Training (DART) in MAWF with secretariat services being provided by the NBRI (a sub-division within

DART). It receives an annual budget from MAWF which is administered by the Namibia Agronomic

Board (NAB). The IPTT comprises of 14 core members of whom 6 have voting rights and a number of

other representatives who have observer status. Members of the IPTT include government, non

government and community based organisations, private sector representatives, farmers unions,

research and academic institutions and donor representatives. There is some fluctuation of

observers depending on what projects are being implemented at any given time, however the IPTT is

open to all interested parties involved in one way or another with INP’s.

The IPTT plays an important “steering” and “coordinating” role in the promotion of the indigenous

natural products sector in Namibia. The IPTT meets at least once on a quarterly basis and to date

has convened 62 meetings. During this time it has played an important role in the design and

implementation of numerous projects, research and marketing initiatives. The IPTT also from time

Page 40 of 97

to time establishes sub-committees tasked to deal with specific matters related to the management

or project aspects of the forum.

The IPTT has adopted a general “pipeline”5 approach to the development of opportunities from

indigenous plants. This approach has allowed for the flexible allocation of limited financial and

human resources to different resources in the pipeline to facilitate the movement of these resources

towards developed products.

In October 2007, recognising the need to evolve and to be in a better position to serve the interests

of the INP sector in Namibia, a Strategic Planning Meeting of stakeholders was held. At this meeting,

participants reiterated the need for the continued existence of the IPTT, but also recognised the

need for changes in its organisational structure. A number of far reaching recommendations in this

respect were made although they have, for a variety of reasons, not been implemented.

3. Objective and Aim

This assignment has two main objectives. The objective of the first part of this assignment is to

conduct an organisational audit of the IPTT by reviewing the proceedings of the 2007 IPTT Strategic

Planning Meeting and consulting with IPTT members and other stakeholders, to establish what

recommendations made at that meeting are still applicable and identify other recommendations

deemed necessary. The second part of this assignment is to, on the basis of the consultations, make

practical recommendations with respect to any organisational changes in the structure and modus

operandi of the IPTT. The aim is to create a sustainable and relevant IPTT that can continue to play

an important role in contributing to furthering the development of the INP sector in Namibia.

4. Scope of Work

The Organisational Audit of the IPTT will be undertaken in two parts.

The first part, referred to as the inception phase, will result in the preparation of a Plan of

Implementation. This should be accomplished by reviewing existing documentation, such as the

IPTT TOR and the Proceedings of the IPTT Strategic Planning Meeting, as well as consulting with the

6 members of the IPTT with voting rights and in particular, the Acting Director of DART, the Plant

Product Development (PPD) section of the NBRI, the IPTT MCA-N Sub-Committee and MCA-N. The

IPTT TOR and the Proceedings of the 2007 IPTT Strategic Planning Meeting are attached to this TOR.

The second part of the Organisation Audit of the IPTT will follow the agreed upon Plan of

Implementation and the Consultant should address among others the following critical aspects:

i) Consult with IPTT members and other significant stakeholders in Windhoek and IPTT

members and stakeholders representing Producer and Processor Organisations in the

regions; and

ii) Identify and study other national-level, sector specific stakeholder groups in the southern

African region to understand how they function and what, if any, might be applicable to the

IPTT.

5 The “pipeline” approach is a strategic plan to proactively create sustainable economic opportunities in the trade of Indigenous Natural Products in Namibia. The “pipeline” approach prioritises natural products with large and relatively quick market potential and promotes their commercial development through a strategy that addresses the entire value chain in partnerships with the private sector.

Page 41 of 97

Through the above two tasks the following aspects should be addressed:

1. An assessment of whether the recommendations made as part of the IPTT Strategic Planning

Meeting are still appropriate;

2. Identify other recommendations not included in the IPTT Strategic Meeting deemed

necessary;

3. Identify shortcomings and constraints as well as opportunities in the current organisational

structure, management arrangements and operational parameters of the IPTT;

4. Make practical recommendations with respect to an alternative or modified (if appropriate)

organisational structure that meets the objectives and aims of the IPTT with particular

emphasis on leadership, organisation dynamics and stakeholder participation, key

function/role and services and financial and organisational sustainability of the IPTT. These

recommendations should also map out a vision and objectives statement for the IPTT,

strategy and timeframe for the implementation of these recommendations; and

5. Facilitate a one (1) day Strategic Planning Workshop for approximately 50 participants in

Windhoek for IPTT members and other stakeholders to present the draft Final Report of the

findings of the work for validation and acceptance.

1. Implementation Modalities

MCA-N will manage the contract related to carrying out the work detailed above while the

MCA-N INP Market Information Development and Support Officer based at the NBRI will

facilitate the implementation of this assignment. The IPTT Sub-Committee set up to co-

ordinate various aspects related to the implementation of the MCA-N INP Activity will act as

a reference point for this work.

6. Timeframe

The above work is expected to be conducted over a 3 month period to be completed by the end of

September 2010.

7. Education and Experience Requirements

The successful Consultant for this assignment should at least have a degree in Social Sciences or

related field with the following:

At least 10 years proven experience in organisational development some of which should be

with similar thematic bodies, for example, stakeholder body or trade association with public

and private sector membership; and

Some knowledge or working experience with the indigenous natural products sector would

be an advantage.

Page 42 of 97

Page 43 of 97

Appendix Two: List of people interviewed

Name Organization

S. Ipinge MAWF

K. Nott NACSO

Ben Bennet NRI/PPO Project Dir

Dave Cole MCA

Helmke Van Bach MCA

M. Ya Kasita MET

N. Iitula MTI

S. Carr MAWF

P. Lenhardt. NAB

C. Brock CEO NAB

Maxi Pia Louis NACSO Secretariat

J. Miller HOGRAN

S. Ndjelekeni EWC

E. Weyulu MAWF DEES

P. Chimwamurombe UNAM

S. Kaulinge OOP

G. Kangueehi Polytechnic

P.du Plessis CRIAASADC

M. Mallet

CRIASADC

G. Maggs-Kolling Dep Dir Dof

H. Lutombi MAWF-Forestry

Prof Neil Crouch South African National Biodiversity Institute

Mr Cyril Lombard Phyto-Trade Africa

Mr Gus Le-Breton Phyto-Trade Africa

Mr Daniel Kehrer GTZ Namibia

Bianca Braun Plant Breeder and Farmer

Page 44 of 97

Appendix Three: Selected References Consulted

National Botanical Research Institute. (September 2010) INP Market Bulletin. Issue 1.

Stacey, R.D. (1996) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. 2nd Edition. London. Pitman

Publishing.

World Economic Forum. (September 2010). Global Competitiveness Report 2010 – 2011.

References provided by IPTT

1. MCA-N IPTT Organisational Audit TOR

2. Appropriate Ownership Models for Natural Product-Based Small and Medium Enterprises in

Namibia (Kate Schreckenberg)

3. IPTT Terms of Reference (pdf doc)

4. Proceedings of the Indigenous Plant Task Team Strategic Planning Meeting (4th & 5th October

2007)

5. Proceedings of the Third National Workshop on Promoting Indigenous Plant Products (26th &

27th March 2007)

6. Proceedings of the 2nd National Indigenous Fruit Stakeholders Workshop Tsumeb, (8 - 9 May

2003)

7. Indigenous Fruit Task Team, Minutes of the First Meeting Wednesday (24 May 2000)

8. Proceedings of the Workshop to Develop a Strategy for the Promotion of Indigenous Fruits in

Namibia (17 & 18 April 2000)

9. Draft Strategy and Action Plan for Promoting Indigenous Fruits in Namibia (Working Version

Prepared for IFTT Meeting on 11 October 2000)

10. NACSO Five-Year Strategic Plan (2010 – 2014) Draft Document

11. Strategy and Action Plan For Promoting Indigenous Fruits in Namibia (Prepared for Ministry of

Agriculture, Water and Rural Development: Directorate of Agricultural Research and Training

and The Indigenous Fruit Task Team) by Pierre Du Plessis CRIAA SA-DC, January 2001

12. National Agricultural Support Services Programme (NASSP) Indigenous Plant Development

Strategy Review (NASSP Report No. 004/2003 May 2003)

13. Useful Plants Development Project (UPDP) [Version 3]

Page 45 of 97

Appendix Four: Responses to IPTT Web-based Questionnaire

IPTT Organisation Audit

Which sector do you represent at IPTT meetings?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Government 23.5% 4

Private Sector 5.9% 1

NGO 17.6% 3

Producer Organisations 11.8% 2

Academic/Research 17.6% 3

Community 0.0% 0

Donor 23.5% 4

Other (please specify) 2

answered question 17

skipped question 1

Other (please specify)

1 all of them, as a holistic approach requires Sep 6, 2010 11:18 PM

2 Parastatal Sep 7, 2010 7:53 AM

Chris1

Text Box

: Responses to web-based questionnaire

Chris1

Text Box

46 of 97


What should the main purpose and priorities of IPTT be? Please do not

tick more than two boxes.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

A committee to inform assist and

influence government in the

regulation and promotion of the

sustainable use of indigenous

plants

44.4% 8

A marketing board which promotes

international trade and sales of

indigenous plants from Namibia

22.2% 4

A platform for different role-

players in the sector to

exchange information and

knowledge for mutual benefit

55.6% 10

A committee that raises and

manages funds for priority

research and development with

respect to new indigenous plant

products

16.7% 3

A committee that promotes “fair

play” in the market to protect the

interests of harvesters and growers

22.2% 4

Other (please specify) 5.6% 1


skipped question 0


1 a) a committee that develops, monitor & review a national strategy (...) &promotes its coordinated implementation amongst stakeholdersb) promotes & defends the reputation of the sector nationally andinternationallyc) fund-raise & allocates resources where strategically needed

Sep 9, 2010 1:38 PM

Chris1

Text Box

47 of 97


What is the biggest value of IPTT to your organisation/company/Ministry.

Please do not tick more than two boxes.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Understand what other IPTT

stakeholders are doing44.4% 8

Creating opportunities to do things

together38.9% 7

Access to finances that supports

our work5.6% 1

Access to expertise and research 33.3% 6

Contact with Government people

working in same area27.8% 5

Identify market opportunities 16.7% 3

Understand challenges facing rural

people5.6% 1

Other (please specify) 2


skipped question 0


1 Discuss, review, legitimate & finances where needed critical work on INPpromotion for the common good of the sector

Sep 9, 2010 1:38 PM

2 Networking with other stakeholders Sep 10, 2010 7:44 PM

Chris1

Text Box

48 of 97


What should IPTT do more of?

Response

Count

17


skipped question 1

Response Text

1 Share information Sep 6, 2010 2:58 PM

2 promote product development Sep 6, 2010 3:20 PM

3 More information type workshops/conferences to discuss thematic issues thatalso allow more contructive and complete feedback from ongoing or new activitieswith respect to INP in Namibia and the region (maybe even internationally)More "fun" type activities

Sep 6, 2010 3:41 PM

4 feedback from the sectorIPTT used as testing ear and advice

Sep 6, 2010 4:08 PM

5 support supply chain development Sep 6, 2010 11:18 PM

6 find market for products Sep 7, 2010 5:32 AM

7 Share their research findings with other staheholders and help farmers to optimiseon their indeginouse plant resources

Sep 7, 2010 6:02 AM

8 Information sharingfund raising

Sep 7, 2010 7:53 AM

9 Information sharing - getting presentatins from members on new work or techncialupdates on ongoing work.

Sep 8, 2010 10:16 AM

10 promotion of pipeline approaches and address production challenges thatproducers are facing eg cracking of ximenia kernels

Sep 9, 2010 6:05 AM

11 a) Sharing general & thematic info with stakehoders b) Involve as many stakehoders as possiblec) Review the impact of the implementation of the national strategy

Sep 9, 2010 1:38 PM

12 Secure fundings and endorse researches to support Pirmary producrs andProcessors. Assist at linking the national INP to international markets for greaterimpact.

Sep 10, 2010 9:54 AM

13 Lobby decision-makers in GRN; influence national development planning Sep 10, 2010 11:31 AM

14 cross check on the research done by other people on IPTT,s behalf as well doingcommunity outreach programmes than sitting in meetings

Sep 10, 2010 12:38 PM

15 coordination, joint monitoring, marketing, business linking Sep 10, 2010 1:14 PM

16 Raise international awareness (directly or through an appropriate agency) aboutNamibia's indigenous products, especially amongst institutions doing research inthis field

Sep 10, 2010 5:58 PM

17 Making sure that more funds reach the grasroots rather than spending most of iton consultancy

Sep 10, 2010 7:44 PM

Chris1

Text Box

49 of 97


What should IPTT do less of?

Response

Count

15


skipped question 3

Response Text

1 Bureacracy Sep 6, 2010 2:58 PM

2 talking about budgets all the time we meet Sep 6, 2010 3:20 PM

3 Meetings to discuss minutes and finances (important but not in the currentformat)

Sep 6, 2010 3:41 PM

4 administrative feedback Sep 6, 2010 4:08 PM

5 micro-manage activities Sep 6, 2010 11:18 PM

6 nothing Sep 7, 2010 5:32 AM

7 Spend a lot of time in meetings discussing finances rather that the researchitself

Sep 7, 2010 6:02 AM

8 Boring meetings Sep 7, 2010 7:53 AM

9 Minutes and admin. Sep 8, 2010 10:16 AM

10 scale down of meeting from 6 to 4 Sep 9, 2010 6:05 AM

11 a) In its meetings, IPTT should not mix agenda related to theSecretariat/Finance/Admin with infor-sharing and strategic review of the sector

Sep 9, 2010 1:38 PM

12 Should do less in supporting or funding or supporting activities that are notfully guaranteed to be fully transfered to communities (primary producers andprocessors).

Sep 10, 2010 9:54 AM

13 Frequent, long meetings Sep 10, 2010 11:31 AM

14 reduce the number of meetings and be flexible to meet on adhoc basis whensomething came up urgently

Sep 10, 2010 12:38 PM

15 lengthy meetings Sep 10, 2010 1:14 PM

Chris1

Text Box

50 of 97


How often should IPTT meet per year?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Once 5.9% 1

Twice 5.9% 1

Three Times 17.6% 3

Four Times 52.9% 9

Five Times 0.0% 0

Six Times 17.6% 3

More 0.0% 0


skipped question 1

Chris1

Text Box

51 of 97


Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Response

Count

15


skipped question 3

Response Text

1 Separate management meetings from information sharing and networkingmeetings

Sep 6, 2010 2:58 PM

2 bring in the producer groups Sep 6, 2010 3:20 PM

3 Depends what meetings you are referring to above, if there is a executivesecretariat then they might have to meet more often

Sep 6, 2010 3:41 PM

4 Chair should rotate Voting rights according to sectors and withing rotating votes

Sep 6, 2010 4:08 PM

5 this is a unique body with a world-beating record of success, please don't kill itor hand it over to the neo-liberals

Sep 6, 2010 11:18 PM

6 no Sep 7, 2010 5:32 AM

7 None Sep 7, 2010 6:02 AM

8 Separate steering committee or executive functions from information anddissemination functions

Sep 7, 2010 7:53 AM

9 Its an importnat forum - but needs to be streamlined to be useful. Sep 8, 2010 10:16 AM

10 annualy meeting where higher ranking officials from keys relevants ministriesand keys stakeholders are invited to be briefed on achievements&challengesas well potentials for future expansion

Sep 9, 2010 6:05 AM

11 On question 5: The IPTT Secretariat (with core voting members) 5 to 6 times ayearThe IPTT stakeholders: 1 AGM + 2 to 3 thematic meetings per year

Sep 9, 2010 1:38 PM

12 No Sep 10, 2010 9:54 AM

13 The IPTT "home" in GRN should be carefully considered, to ensure best fitand thus sustained support.

Sep 10, 2010 11:31 AM

14 no Sep 10, 2010 12:38 PM

15 should have at least two types of meetings with closer and broaderstakeholders

Sep 10, 2010 1:14 PM

Chris1

Text Box

52 of 97

Page 53 of 97

Appendix Five: Draft notes on operations and strategy

The following notes outline key steps and questions in establishing multi-stakeholder bodies. IPTT

has many of these elements already in place. This note also outlines a possible approach to the

proposed annual strategic review and year-plan process

Setting up

institutions, power and politics)

akeholder support

MSP

requirements and resource needs

Throughout: Learning - Monitoring, and Adapting

Implementing and managing

rated initiatives and detailed action plans


Planning strategically

motivations, concerns and interests

future scenarios and feasible options

responsibilities

Page 54 of 97


Learning – monitoring and adapting

environment

(performance questions and indicators)

monitoring mechanisms

progress and capture lessons learned

lessons learned back into strategies and implementation procedures

The proposed annual strategic review and year-plan process does not need to take more than one

day of facilitated work by the Management Committee and Secretariat – around ten people.

In sum, such an exercise would be a structured way of selecting out priority activities that respond

to:

1) the group’s agreed understanding of important developments in the INP sector (external), and;

2) knowing what interests, resources and capabilities are available to IPTT (internal).

A strategic plan is simply a coherent collection of planned activities which, together, contribute

towards the achievement of common goals and objectives. The more clearly these activities are

described with budgets, responsible persons and time-frames, the greater the likelihood of impact

and desired outcomes.

Participants come to agree upon the priority connections between the key issues that IPTT is

focussing upon, and then develop a table of proposed actions to address these over a one to two-

year period.

An active process of engagement during the development of an annual strategy and work-plan can

have a number of benefits:

1. Promoting strategic thinking and action, which helps us choose the kind of information (internal and external) to prioritise and pay attention to. This process can help develop the habit of multi-stakeholder learning, clarify the future direction of IPTT, and establish agreements among stakeholders on priorities for action.

2. Improved decision-making as a result of focussing on the priority strategic issues facing IPTT. 3. Improved organisational performance – with the development of agreed plans to address the

key issues. 4. Assist the decision-makers in respective organisations to meet their responsibilities, and also to

strengthen teamwork.

Page 55 of 97

There are a number of sequential steps that inform the development of a strategy and year-plan

document:

1) Agreeing on the development of an annual strategy and work-plan document This was agreed to in principle at the 29th September workshop.

2) Identifying organisational mandates – formal and informal “must do’s” This addresses questions like: Are all the key role-players on board? What are their respective

mandates and whose interests do they represent?

3) Clarifying vision, mission and values Affirming or clarifying IPTT’s vision, mission, purpose and values that inform the development and

implementation of a strategy and year-plan. IPTT has a vision for the sector (what it would like the

sector to look like). IPTT does not have a clearly stated mission (what and how IPTT specifically sees

itself contributing towards the achievement of that vision).

4) Assessing external and internal environments Developing a written summary assessment of the internal and external contexts with respect to the

key developments, trends, opportunities and threats they pose with respect to an appropriate

strategy.

5) Identifying the strategic issues facing IPTT This usually means looking at the important issues involving tensions or challenges around questions

of what, how, why, where, by when, by who. What are the key operational questions facing the

management team in seeing that the strategy is implemented? How does IPTT prioritise these while

keeping sufficiently flexible in responding to new priority challenges or opportunities that may arise.

How can the management team develop a culture and process of discussion that enables:

a) Initial discussion in terms of what it is that makes this an issue for IPTT. b) What makes it a priority that should be addressed first? c) Some prioritisation through identifying those issues that have the greatest potential

negative consequences if IPTT failed to address them i) in the next six months to a year; ii) in the next two or three years.

6) Formulating plans to manage the agreed strategic priority issues A simple logframe description of IPTT objectives, the key deliverables that IPTT will take

responsibility for over the next year, the resources needed to deliver these, who will be responsible

for ensuring these, and by when.

Questions worth considering:

Vision, mission, values and purpose o Does IPTT need to develop a stronger shared understanding of what the different

possible roles are for the various stakeholders (government departments, as well as other stakeholders) in addressing IP issues in Namibia?

o What vision do key stakeholders share with respect to the IP sector in Namibia? o What should IPTT take responsibility for in helping realise this vision?

Page 56 of 97

Governance: o Who qualifies to be a member of IPTT? o What are the management arrangements for IPTT? o Is there clarity on the mandates, rights and responsibilities of members? o How are decisions made? o How can communication across the members be enhanced?

Operations: o What skills and strengths do the key role-players have, and in what areas does IPTT need

to assist in strengthening the operations of key role-players? o Do all key role-players agree upon and have the same understanding of what is required

in terms of use and control of resources available to IPTT?

What should the main focus be over the next three years? How much can be done with the resources available, or that could be procured?

o Is the management committee able to identify which priority projects will best contribute to addressing agreed priorities in the IP sector?

o Is it possible to communicate this to the broader membership and get their endorsement at an AGM?

o Is the level of ambition realistic? Is there likely to be money and available people/organisations to implement these plans?

The table below is a graphic representation of a “Strategy Change Management Process” tha IPTT could use.

AGM

IPTT

Strategic

Outlook

IPTT year

plan

Implement Planned

Activities

Management structure

responsible for IPTT

Receive reports, reflect,

communicate, decide, feedback

on learning with respect to

IPTT’s impact in INP sector

Annual internal review

processes

FORCES AND TRENDS

Political

Economic

Ecological

Social

RESOURCE CONTROLLERS

Donors

Government

budgets

NAB

Legal systems

Private Sector

COMPETITIVE FORCES

International and

local players in value

chain COLLABORATIVE

FORCES

IPTT members

Assess External Environment

With opportunities and threats

Assess Internal Environment

IPTT’s strengths and weaknesses

PERFORMANCE

Indicators

Monitoring

Results

History

PRESENT STRATEGY

Financial

Administration

Staffing

Governance

Membership

Partnerships

RESOURCES

Staff

Infrastructure

Systems

Funds

Relationships

Govt’s mandate on INP

Common Vision, Mission

and Values of IPTT

members

Desired impact on INP Sector

Adjust internal environment to

meet objectives (management)

IPTT Members

IPTT Strategic

Priorities

Chris1

Text Box

Diagram Two: IPTT Strategy Change Management Cycle

Page 58 of 97

Appendix Six: Proceedings of the IPTT Organizational Audit

Stakeholder Workshop

Introduction

On the 29 September 2010, stakeholders from the Indigenous Natural Products sector and members

of the Indigenous Plants Task Team (IPTT) met to review the findings of the IPTT organisational Audit

and to deliberate on the new structure and function of IPTT.

This summary report seeks to update and outline the workshop process, discussions, conclusions,

recommendations and action plan.

The workshop outcome does not make it possible within the timeframes of this consultancy to assist

the IPTT in developing the required new Terms of Reference. Some key decisions and agreements

among members of IPTT remain to be further discussed and developed. To this end an IPTT task-

team has been appointed to enable further discussions and to resolve some organisational details

that the workshop did not have time to discuss.

There was also strong in-principle agreement by workshop participants on some important

recommendations in the audit report which will be taking IPTT into new operational territory.

Process

It should not be unexpected that a process such as this IPTT audit serves to stimulate a bigger

process of organisational reflection, engagement and change. This process has assumed a life and

course which goes beyond the initial terms and time-spans of this consultancy. Important changes

are being considered and it is critical that IPTT and its stakeholders are afforded the time and space

necessary to ensure that the final outcome is one which best serves the INP Sector in Namibia in the

future.

The organisation audit assignment provided the opportunity and space for key IPTT participants to:

f) Through semi-structured interviews to reflect on the status quo, achievements, ambitions

and operational conditions of the task team;

g) share their preferences with respect to purpose, priorities and organisation structure via a

quantitative questionnaire;

h) For a nominated IPTT multi-stakeholder committee to meet three times to receive briefings

and to guide the consultant in conducting the process;

i) receive a written report and then a detailed presentation in a workshop wherein the

context, challenges and preferences of the task team stakeholders are summarised;

j) experience independently facilitated group discussions among key stakeholders on

foundational issues affecting the future purpose and functioning of IPTT.

Page 59 of 97

The workshop began with a welcome by MCA followed by introductory remarks by the Chair of IPTT

(Mr Ipinge) who thanked MCA for enabling the audit process and workshop, and also thanked

participants for their engagement in IPTT.

The Chair of IPTT informed the workshop that the Government of Namibia was committed to

financially supporting and engaging in the operations of IPTT until 2014. This continued engagement

in IPTT was reported to be a result of the commitments made by GRN to the Millennium Challenge

Corporation (MCC).

The consultant invited participants to introduce themselves and proceeded to outline the purpose of

the workshop, the proposed process, agenda and timeframes. Participants indicated their

satisfaction with the proposals.

A PowerPoint-assisted presentation was given by the consultant (See Appendix Two). The IPTT’s

strategic context was summarised; key challenges and opportunities were outlined; stakeholder

responses and preferred future options for IPTT were presented; and tentative recommendations

with regard to the purpose, function and structure of IPTT were made.

Response

Initial comment and response to the presented report was positive and validated the observations

and proposed way forward. It was agreed that the four broad objectives as outlined in the IPTT 2005

ToR remained relevant.

It was also agreed that the primary purpose of IPTT included the following:

To promote and optimise coordination among stakeholders in the sector;

To provide an enabling framework for member organisations to act in a concerted manner;

To provide a forum for discussion, reflection and development of knowledge of the sector in

Namibia with a view to:

o Identifying and agreeing upon sector-wide strategic priorities ;

o Giving attention to how all stakeholders could contribute to addressing these identified

priorities ;

o Where available and appropriate, to apply and direct resources to facilitate achievement

of desired outcomes.

Provide a conducive environment that promotes cooperation, develops mutual trust and

enables open and frank discussion of the challenges and opportunities in the sector.

It was recognised by participants that the above purposes could only be achieved through

investment in a long-term process.

Function

The workshop also endorsed the centrally important role of Government in the IPTT, and saw the

IPTT as a platform upon which Government could be engaged in a balanced and constructive

manner on issues that were of sector-wide importance. IPTT also saw a role for itself in supporting

the achievement of government’s strategic objectives.

Page 60 of 97

A question / recommendation was raised with respect to IPTT having a useful role as an

international focal point and site of referral to INP stakeholders in Namibia.

There was strong support for the role of IPTT in developing an information sharing mechanism and

framework. This would include IPTT playing a role in facilitating the holding of:

Targeted meetings – for IPTT members, but also public meetings – where information on

current issues of relevance would be shared and discussed;

Improved documentation of lessons learned, successes and achievements in the sector;

The development and sharing of databases, market information and general awareness

concerning sustainable utilisation of INP – possibly including the development of a website.

It was suggested that IPTT-facilitated “information and strategy” general meetings be held on a

seasonal basis – up to four times per year. An important by-product of such meetings would be

enhanced visibility of the sector generally, and IPTT specifically.

Structure

It was agreed that IPTT should no longer have the distinction in which some stakeholders were not

considered to be voting members. IPTT would embark upon a change process that saw it move from

being a task-team with selected voting members towards becoming a membership based, multi-

stakeholder forum where all members will have a vote applying its collective mind to understanding

and addressing INP issues of strategic national importance. The proposed strategic outlook of IPTT

and its annual priority focus areas would be mandated via the AGM of IPTT.

Some discussion was held with respect to defining who might and might not qualify as members of a

future IPTT. It was agreed in principle that the future IPTT should try and avoid excluding INP

stakeholders who would like to be members. The discussion suggested that membership focus

should be towards representation of organised groups, associations or companies. Membership

would embrace the public sector, the private sector and civil society. This did not exclude the

possibility of individual membership applications being considered. It was however not necessary for

people to be members of IPTT for them to participate in and benefit from public meetings arranged

by IPTT. It was agreed by workshop participants that a separate and relatively small management

committee be formed to take care of the management and administration of IPTT affairs. It was seen

as important that the general information-sharing meetings not be “bogged-down” by minutes,

finances and other administrative and management matters.

The management committee, supported by the Secretariat (NBRI/MCA-N), would be responsible for

ensuring that relevant and focussed information sharing and strategy discussion meetings were held

for the wider membership up to four times per year.

It was also agreed in principle that this Management Committee would be mandated by the Annual

General Meeting of IPTT with respect to the priorities they as a committee should be focusing on in

the year ahead. The Management Committee will be required to develop a “strategic outlook”

summary prior to the AGM, in which they present to the AGM, key and emerging issues impacting

upon the sector at national level. The strategic outlook would include the identification of two or

three focus areas and a description of the related outcomes that IPTT should be assisting in

achieving.

Page 61 of 97

IPTT membership would receive the “strategic outlook and action plan” ahead of the AGM to enable

discussion and final endorsement at the AGM. The action plan would form the basis of the mandate

given by the AGM to the Management Committee.

There was energetic discussion by stakeholders on proposed models of representation on the IPTT

Management Committee.

It was agreed that the Management Committee should be chaired by Government. The Government,

through the Chair of IPTT, proposed that the Management Committee be comprised of between five

to seven members, with direct sectoral representation as follows:

6. Public Sector

7. Academia

8. Associations of harvesters, collectors, community-based organisations

9. Processors / Value-add services

10. NGOs / service providers

A key element of the motivation for sectoral representation was to promote opportunities for

equitable control and direction of the resources available to IPTT, and particularly to address the

previous absence of direct representation by harvesters and collectors.

There were various forms of counter-proposal from academia, CBOs and NGOs which focussed on

the argument that the Management Committee would be mandated by the membership to perform

management functions and that, except for the Chair appointed by GRN, members should be free to

vote on representatives by merit – people who could be trusted by the membership to represent

broad interests, and people known to be able to deliver. The idea of Management Committee

representatives being appointed or allocated on a sectoral basis was not supported by some

stakeholders.

There appeared to be limited space and time for a compromise solution to emerge. Neither of the

parties holding positions was willing to deviate from the fundamental principle of their proposals.

The GRN indicated that they were firm on the principle of sectoral representation but would accept

a committee as large as seven representatives.

Way Forward

It was suggested that the IPTT ToR be revised to incorporate the new proposal that IPTT would come

up with and MCA- Namibia would assist in developing the new IPTT ToR. MCA-Namibia has allocated

funds to IPTT for the four year period to cover specific IPTT activities and IPTT should prepare a

strategic budget to be presented to MCA-N.

In closing, it was resolved that an “Interim Task Team” would be appointed.

The Director of DART and Chair of IPTT would convene the task-team and act part-time.

The members of the TT are:

Percy Chimwamurombe Academia (UNAM)

Magdalena Ya Kasita Government (MET)

Page 62 of 97

Festus Kapembe CRIAA SA-DC

IPTT secretariat (Steve Carr and Loide Uahengo)

A representative of the NGO sector was nominated to participate but declined the nomination.

The task team will:

5. Meet in the IPTT Chairperson’s Office at 11h00 on Friday 1st October to map out the scope

and key tasks;

6. Develop a consensus proposal on the structuring and functioning of IPTT as a multi-

stakeholder task team;

7. Circulate this proposal to all workshop participants by 08h30 on Monday 11th October;

8. Present the proposals for discussion and adoption by the 65th IPTT meeting to be held on

Wednesday 13th October. These proposals and their resolution and adoption by the IPTT

meeting will be the priority focus of the IPTT meeting.

Page 63 of 97

Appendix Seven: Participants in the stakeholder workshop

NAME INSTITUTION EMAIL

S. Ipinge MAWF [email protected]

S. Carr NBRI [email protected]

V. Louw MAWF-DoF [email protected]

M. Ya Kasita MET-DSS [email protected]

N. Iitula MTI [email protected]

N. Shigwedha UNAM [email protected]

P.M. Chimwamurombe UNAM [email protected]

D. Mumbengegwe UNAM [email protected]

M. Mallet CRIAA SA-DC [email protected]

K. Fleissner CRIAA SA-DC [email protected]

F. Shigwedha CRIAA SADC [email protected]

K. Nott NACSO [email protected]

S. Kaulinge Oontanga oil producers [email protected]

P. Lenhardt NAB [email protected]

E. Weyulu ERSC -MAWF-DEES [email protected]

F. Kapembe CRIAA SA-DC [email protected]

H. Kolberg MSBP [email protected]

I. Henschel GTRC [email protected]

D. Cole MCA-N [email protected]

L. Uahengo MCA-N-NBRI [email protected]

L. Visser Organic oil Africa [email protected]

J. Visser Organic oil Africa

C. Albertyn Consultant [email protected]

R. Ridgway INP PPO [email protected]

Oliver Pierson MCC [email protected]

























Page 64 of 97

Appendix Eight: Power-point presentation given to the workshop Slide 1


Namibia 2010

1

IPTT asked for the following

To conduct an organisational audit with reference to the

implementation of recommendations of the IPTT 2007

strategic planning meeting;

to determine from stakeholders which recommendations

remain relevant, and what else may be needed in the current

context.

Informed by these consultations, to make practical

recommendations with respect to any organisational changes

in the structure and modus operandi of IPTT.

Slide 2

Page 65 of 97


Namibia 2010

2

Process

1. Desk-top review of IPTT documents and minutes

2. Attending Phyto-trade Africa AGM

3. Inception Note outlining key issues and approach

4. 28 interviews

5. Debriefing with IPTT sub-committee

6. Distribution of questionnaire 18/25

7. Submission of first draft report

8. Workshop today

9. Decide on way forward for IPTT

10. Finalise report

Slide 3

Page 66 of 97


Namibia 2010

3

Key findings

IPTT remains an important multi-stakeholder structure recognised by all as of value to

the INP sector in Namibia;

Government in IPTT is important – to give leadership and to enable stakeholders to

engage;

Secretariat services provided through NBRI by GRN – and more recently also via

MCA - a critical and important resource

GRN review: rationalisation of participation in multiple multi-stakeholder committees,

and has moved to close some of these committees or reduce participation therein ;

The GRN is committed to the continuation IPTT and contributing some funding and

resources until at least 2014.

Slide 4

Page 67 of 97


Namibia 2010

4

Important context

IPTT’s Multi-purpose history over ten years

Idea of multi-stakeholder body to inform and implement GRN strategy on INP

Platform for discussion – springboard for ventures such as NEWCO

Vehicle for funding important initiatives

Site for understanding what is happening in sector

Different understandings of what IPTT does, or should be doing

IPTT does not have legal status

No constitution

Government members effectively accountable for IPTT

60% see information-sharing and networking as most important

Slide 5

Page 68 of 97


Namibia 2010

5

Important context

Export value of INP products is relatively small

N$13 million 2009

N$24 million 2008

The distribution and nature of the INP chain gives it an added value

Contributes to social cohesion and organisation

International perceptions of organised, relatively equitable industry

Attracts additional buyers and income for activities in sector

8000 organised producers

Available income from sale of products is spread wide as NB supplement

Government, donors and role-players have made considerable investment and developed sector over ten years

Slide 6

Page 69 of 97


Namibia 2010

6

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

MA

WF

Tru

st

Fu

nd

s (

N$)

Year

IPTT Funds Received2000 - 2010

N$6,466,013.00

MAWF IPTT

UPDP

GTZ

NASSP - IPTT

Slide 7

Page 70 of 97


Namibia 2010

7

Important context

Distribution of funding to important identified actions has

been a dominant part of IPTT activities

Available funds for earmarked activities are lessening

INP value chain broad – but numbers of actors narrow

Multiple roles – benefits not perceived to be “fairly” spread

“Development fatigue”

Feeling that IPTT meetings have become too bureaucratic

Slide 8

Page 71 of 97


Namibia 2010

8

2007 Strategic planning

> 30 recommendations

Hold AGM, elect executive committee, mandate secretariat

Four areas of “intervention”

Supply chain management and development

Outreach

Relationships

Capacity Development

Slide 9

Page 72 of 97


Namibia 2010

9

A “purpose-built vehicle”?

Slide 10

Page 73 of 97


Namibia 2010

10

Slide 11

Page 74 of 97


Namibia 2010

11

Slide 12

Page 75 of 97


Namibia 2010

12

Important “specifications” for multi-stakeholder vehicles

Equity: recognise wide divergences of power, resources and

influence of stakeholders, “equity” implies equal right to be at

the table and be recognised for your contributions;

Transparency: Openness and honesty in working relationships

build trust. Only with transparent working can a partnership be

properly accountable to partner donors and other stakeholders.

Mutual Benefit: If all partners are expected to contribute they

should also be entitled to benefit. Healthy partnerships work

towards achieving specific benefits for each partner – over and

above the common benefits to all partners. This way, there is

sustained commitment.

Slide 13

Page 76 of 97


Namibia 2010

13

Other key specifications

Choose few and most important destinations first - focus

Be clear who the members are and what they are expected to

contribute

Be flexible but do set clear goals and targets

Have clear and agreed procedures that all must follow

Keep discussing “mutual benefit”; “equity”; “transparency”

Share information and develop a common understanding

Balance between top-down and bottom-up

Slide 14

Page 77 of 97


Namibia 2010

14

Slide 15

Page 78 of 97


Namibia 2010

15

Slide 16

Page 79 of 97


Namibia 2010

16

Slide 17

Page 80 of 97


Namibia 2010

17

Slide 18

Page 81 of 97


Namibia 2010

18

IPTT Purpose

1st – to exchange information and develop a common understanding

with role-players of what is happening in the sector;

IPTT as “facilitating” platform – not “implementing”;

Engage with government to assist and influence them in achieving the

best for the sector

Enables IPTT, or mandates other organisations to address commonly

identified issues – as and when the need arises – strategically

allocating available resources (people and $) to address priorities

Slide 19

Page 82 of 97


Namibia 2010

19

Organisation structure and management

Become membership-based multi-stakeholder platform (all

members have a vote)

Hold AGM and elect management committee

Management Committee (Mancom) meets separate to conduct admin

Broad membership meets 2-4 x per year (AGM and 6/12 report back)

Develop annual strategy outlook and action plans for approval by AGM

Three representatives to Mancom nominated annually at AGM by

Government

Government Chairs IPTT

5 – 7 other representative members of Mancom elected by AGM (broadly

nominated by each sector)

Slide 20

Page 83 of 97


Namibia 2010

20

Slide 21

Page 84 of 97


Namibia 2010

21

Slide 22

Page 85 of 97


Namibia 2010

22

Dear XXX

Thank you for your inquiry about becoming involved with the Indigenous

Plants Task Team (IPTT).

The IPTT is a multi-stakeholder platform which seeks to work in partnership

with the Government of Namibia in order to:

“promote the sustainable utilisation of Namibia’s indigenous plant resources

so that Namibia enjoys:

• greater household food security;

• agricultural diversification;

• income, employment and livelihood opportunities;

• agro-industrial development “ (adapted from 2005 Terms of Reference)

Slide 23

Page 86 of 97


Namibia 2010

23

Members of IPTT come from various parts of the sector, with each of us

contributing to the achievement of the above objectives according to

our own interests, expertise and resources.

IPTT is firstly a platform to promote sharing of information and

networking so that we may all understand the sector and agree on

where we would like it to be. IPTT can also facilitate various other

activities and interventions as prioritised and agreed to by its

members.

IPTT members will be invited to participate in at least two networking

and information-sharing events per year. One of these events will also

include the Annual General Meeting of IPTT.

Slide 24

Page 87 of 97


Namibia 2010

Two types of meetings

Management Committee plus-minus 4 x per annum

• implementation and monitoring of priority actions

• developing strategic outlook, selecting priorities as informed by

membership feedback and engagements

• General Meetings – all members

• at least two – but probably more, targeted information sharing

meetings – developing a collective strategic understanding of

priorities in the sector:

• space for members to report-back on their activities

• space for specialised or tailored input to inform on and

discuss priorities facing the sector

24

Slide 25

Page 88 of 97


Namibia 2010

25

MEMBERSHIP

Membership of IPTT is open to .....

? individuals; properly constituted organisations;

? Is there a membership fee for those who are not government?

? Does membership have to be re-confirmed every year?

? Under what circumstances can continued membership be denied?

Slide 26

Page 89 of 97


Namibia 2010

26

STRUCTURE

The Management Committee is responsible for the proper administration and

accountability of IPTT’s operations. It is elected annually at the AGM:

Membership of the management committee: the management committee is comprised

of

three members nominated by Government

Between five and seven members who are elected or nominated by their sectors

These sectors are: ....

The Chairperson of the management committee?

A Deputy Chairperson?

Alternate members?

Slide 27

Page 90 of 97


Namibia 2010

27

SECRETARIAT

The Secretariat role is provided by one person at the NBRI, supported until 2014 by a

person seconded to the NBRI through the Millennium Challenge Account.

The work of the Secretariat is guided by the Management Committee through the

Chairperson / Deputy?

Slide 28

Page 91 of 97


Namibia 2010

28

DECISION-MAKING

The Management Committee is responsible for implementing the Annual Work-plan as

endorsed by the AGM.

The AGM mandates the Management Committee to take decisions and allocate resources

towards implementing priority activities as determined by the Management Committee and

informed by the general membership.

Decisions of the Management Committee will require the support of half the committee

membership plus one.

Slide 29

Page 92 of 97


Namibia 2010

29

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Funds received in support of the work of IPTT are managed by the Namibian Agronomic

Board (NAB), following written instruction of the Management Committee through the

chair or his/her deputy

ACTIVITIES

IPTT is a facilitatory platform and does not seek to take on roles and responsibilities that

particular members or sub-sectors of the platform are better placed to perform.

IPTT will use its resources to promote networking, information-sharing and strategic

knowledge-development activities as directed by its membership through the

management committee.

Slide 30

Page 93 of 97


Namibia 2010

30

STRATEGIC ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO PRIORITIES

In the event the IPTT has funds available, the Management Committee may allocate

funds for selected activities and projects to the achievement of agreed priority

outcomes.

Page 94 of 97

Appendix Nine: Evaluation Feedback on the Workshop

95 of 97

IPTT Workshop - Feedback and Response

1. Please rate the venue and catering for the workshop

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 56.3% 9

Good 31.3% 5

Satisfactory 12.5% 2

Not so good 0.0% 0

Not good at all 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

2. Please rate presentation of the report

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 75.0% 12

Good 25.0% 4

Satisfactory 0.0% 0

Not so good 0.0% 0



skipped question 0

96 of 97

3. Please rate the quality of facilitation provided at the workshop

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 56.3% 9

Good 37.5% 6

Satisfactory 6.3% 1

Not so good 0.0% 0



skipped question 0

4. Did the outcome or conclusions of the workshop meet your

expectations?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very much so 25.0% 4

Some of them 56.3% 9

Neutral 12.5% 2

Not really 6.3% 1

Not at all 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

5. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Response

Count

9

answered question 9

skipped question 7

97 of 97

IPTT Workshop - Feedback and Response

Is there anything else you would like to add?

Response

Count

9

answered question 9

skipped question 7

Response Text

1 I think the event is suppose to be called a brain-storming session not really a workshop Sep 30, 2010 12:22 PM

2 None Sep 30, 2010 1:49 PM

3 More on 4. Morning achieved excellent results but afternoon bogged down unfortunately, not due to the facilitator Sep 30, 2010 2:25 PM

4 The report was very informative and easy to understand. Sep 30, 2010 2:57 PM

5 Good initiative and keep it up! Sep 30, 2010 6:34 PM

6 In future, a workshop like this should take more than one day to allow participants to have more time for discussion and reach mutualagreement.

Oct 1, 2010 6:29 AM

7 Nothing to add Oct 1, 2010 9:39 AM

8 one of the core founder of IPTT refused the assigned task in boarder day light was a big socking . Please this should be avoided infuture.

Oct 1, 2010 10:34 AM

9 no Oct 4, 2010 8:47 AM

Documents

Contract Title] Calibri font, 18-22pt, centered Final Report