REVISED-FIELD-PROJECT-REPORTING by asafwewe

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 7

REVISED-FIELD-PROJECT-REPORTING

More Info
									April 2003                                                  Field Programme Reporting Manual

Appendix 16. Trust Fund Project Progress Report

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT #1
Trust Fund Programme Period of Reporting
                                                           March-November 2006
Project symbol                    ‘Development in a Drugs Environment –
DRG/2005/110-
435 &                         Mainstreaming: Strategic Approach to Alternative
GCP/INT/992/E                                 Development’
C
Operating Unit            Lead Technical Unit   EOD-date    NTE-date   Total project budget
Environment &             Environment &         1 March     28
Natural                   Natural Resources     2006        February   US$400,000
Resources                 Service (SDRN)                    2008
Service (SDRN)


A. Progress and Outputs

(Please use extra sheets if necessary)
1) Summary Immediate Objectives

#1. Develop a strategy to make operational a coordinated ‘Alternative Development’
approach.
#2. Development of definitions and recommendations.
#3. Integrating development organisations in the ‘development in a drugs environment
approach.

2) Description of progress towards achievement of Immediate Objectives

*Summary Signed into action for the end of 2005, the project began de facto in March 2006.
Field activities began with the implementation of the first of two international workshops
scheduled - in May 2006. This report covers the workshop, preparatory work required of the
contractor, follow-up supervisory activities and planning into the first half of 2007. The first
six monthly FAO project progress report (PPR) describing the work of the contractor is
attached as an annex to this report. An overview of activities, achievements, planning, etc.
undertaken by the contractor comprises the basis of reporting contained herein. A number of
additional reports and papers are annexed to this report.

*Management Regular meetings of the project steering committee (PSC) have been held prior
to (1), and during (x2), the reporting period - three in total. These have provided opportunities
for key people in the core agencies to relate one-with-the-other, and to begin to form the basis
of a project team/network. A firm and reliable working relationship between the project
contractor (GTZ) and the project supervisor (FAO) has been established. This is encouraging.

*Project extension With a de facto starting date of March 2006, the project will be extended
into mid-2008; and as close to the proposed UNGASS Assessment as-may-be-possible.
*Project budget (FAO/GTZ) The first of 3-4 payments of value €100,500 was made to the
contractor for the beginning of 2006. At time of reporting €96,260 (96%) had been utilized.

3) Outputs produced during reporting period as outlined in Plan of Operations/Work
   Plan, under all headings and sub-headings.

Section based on reporting provided by the contractor - specialist group ‘Development
Orientated Drug Control Programme (DDC)’ of Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmhH; with supplementary reporting from supervisory and reporting
activities of the Organization (representing the Executing Agency).

*International workshop #1 ‘Alternative Development’ The key output from the workshop
held in Berlin in May 2006 was one of ‘potential’. Herein are/were the people,
contacts/networks, resources, information and, importantly, a willingness to do more. The
challenge for the project will be one of providing the continuity required into the next period
given the extremely limited resources immediately available within the project budget.
Raising expectations and then failing to deliver is no option – notwithstanding the limited
output required of project design (i.e. raising awareness in key institutions; providing firm
messages for management; providing models whereby future counter-narcotics investments
can be made; etc.). The measure of confusion that arose with use of the many different
technical terms used by the industry is no impediment to achievement; the project can decide
to shift resources into the development of appropriate texts explaining the underlying
(sometimes complex) issues that arise. A ‘Synthesis Document (SD)’ was produced post-
workshop summarising some of the key issues/debate/findings/recommendations made.

*Networks There is considerable advantage with networking people - that they are able to
develop links into the information and services that will assist the many community, national
and regional initiatives underway in their regions in support of counter-narcotics programmes.
This potential was recognised at the Berlin workshop but, thereafter, little has taken place
outside the core PSC group – and this potential remains to be determined. Making the correct
choices comes from the implementation of a ‘communications strategy (CS)’ that will suit the
requirements of the project (and project design). The establishment of an appropriate CS is
currently underway. Herein will be the messages, targets, methods, timelines and budgets that
will apply.

*Communications Communication projects succeed on the basis of the quality of the
technical and management information developed and shared and, importantly, on the means
whereby networks continue to remain active. This requires considerable effort from project
management recognising potential and taking decisive action.
The extent of the technical information generated during the reporting period has been
excellent – based, as much of it has been, on the many people and investment made with the
Berlin workshop.
No formal proceedings have been prepared to describe the outcome of the workshop; the
Synthesis Report describes background, context, debate, issues and summary. A CD has been
compiled that contains the 22 papers, presentations and PowerPoint pictures. It also includes
reporting on the group discussions that followed the formal presentations. A table listing the
papers, etc. available from the workshop is attached to this report. A number of technical
papers linked into the work of the people involved with the project have also been shared
within the core management group, courtesy of the contractors. These mainly relate to counter
narcotics reporting in Afghanistan and have been prepared by the consultant.
Reporting by management has been good, with final versions of reports prepared and
distributed following all major meetings and similar activities. Five reports – typical of the
models developed - are attached to this report. A number of initiatives remain underway at
time of reporting – for project self-evaluation and communications strategy development.
Final versions will be available for the next reporting period.

*Information sharing Information that is not shared represents wasted resources. One part of
the CS will recognise the value of web-links, of e-communications, newsletters and similar.
The contractor already has a viable internet site at which the project is being exhibited; FAO
have a second site under construction (but covering all FAO-linked narcotics initiatives) and
proposals for an e-conference have been made for 2007. Additionally, technical information
will be collated and published. The potential for information sharing will be realised.
Language, however, remains an issue with sharing information; all key papers, etc. should –
for best - be prepared in English and Spanish. Routine bi-lingual correspondence would be of
value to the project when networking into/sharing with the Andean countries. Fail to do this
adequately and the latter may become lost to the networks. Language was seen as an issue at
the Berlin workshop – with no formal English/Spanish language services available; which
limited information sharing with the minority Spanish speaking delegations. Herein will be
messages that will relate to the proposed second international workshop; and venues, etc. that
may apply.

Summary: progress linked to outputs described in the Project Agreement
Obj#1/Output1.1: Strategic developments for ‘Alternative Development (AD)’. Project on
target to develop a strategy within limited resources of funds and time available; linking the
outcome of the Berlin workshop to the debate/decision-making of the PSC core group (and
the resources of the contractor) and the messages required of the forthcoming UNGASS
meeting scheduled for early 2008. Key messages will follow from focus of debate within
regional groups within the proposed second international workshop.
Obj#1/Output1.2: Technical documents in support of ‘Alternative Development (AD)’. The
Berlin workshop resulted in >20 technical papers and presentations in support of ‘AD’.
Further papers/messages are in preparation that comply with guidelines required of the
communications strategy for ‘what, where, when and how to’ for the messages required.
Obj#2/Output2.1: Definitions and recommendations. Consensus reached amongst key
international counter-narcotics people at the first international workshop held Berlin mid-
2006 for an understanding of key terms and definitions (including ‘mainstreaming’ and
‘alternative development’); leading into firm recommendations that will be developed.
Recommendations will result in the preparation of a mainstream paper.
Obj#3/Output3.1: Development Organisations and ‘Development Drugs Environment’. Signs
that dialogue/messages/papers have helped established support for counter-narcotics
development within key donor/technical agencies, NGOs, public sector and key people within
definitions promoted by the project. Networking post-Berlin workshop has provided feedback
that appropriate information is being exchanged; this will assist with design, modus operandi,
etc. required for the second international workshop.
B. Inputs

1. List national & international professional staff assigned to the project during the
reporting period
National                                      International
Name                   Function               Name                    Function
None                                          John Latham             Team Leader &
                                                                      FAO Focal Point on
                                                                      Drug Abuse &
                                                                      Control
                                              Peter Steele            Consultant project
                                              David Hitchcock         Senior Farming
                                                                      Systems Officer
                                              Ruben Sessa             Technical Officer
                                                                      Environment
                                              Julio de Castro         Senior Technical
                                                                      Officer Veterinary
                                                                      (and previously
                                                                      FAO Representative
                                                                      Bolivia)
                                              Doyle Baker             Chief Agro-
                                                                      Management, etc.
                                                                      Service
                                              Contractor team         GTZ contractor
                                              comprising Team         team located in
                                              Leader, Technical       Eschborn Germany
                                              Officer & Assistant
2. Equipment received during the reporting period

Not applicable


3. Training activities during the reporting period, viz: fellowships, study tours, field
days, local workshops. Please list how many trainees (male/female) were involved in
each activity.
International workshop #1 Held 28-31/05/06; >50 attendees. The contractor planned,
organized and implemented a highly successful workshop at the offices of GTZ in Berlin
Germany. Representatives from >20 narcotics producer countries and countries supporting
counter narcotics programmes and >10 agencies, NGOs and others working in support of
alternative development programmes attended. The workshop was dynamic and
demanding, and provided an excellent basis for promoting key messages linked to
‘alternative development’.
C. Problems encountered and actions taken or requested to resolve them


Problems have been strictly limited – should be considered more as options/opportunities
for decision-making required of the contractor and of the project management team.
Consider:
International workshop #2. Making choices for design, venue, invitees, approach, etc.
required – following from the parameters chosen for the first international workshop held in
Berlin mid-year; to provide for continuity and attainment of the objectives of the project.
Action taken: shared decision-making within the proposed 4th PSC meeting scheduled for
February 2007 – to be reconfirmed at the 5th (and core group) PSC meeting scheduled
for mid-year.

Budget resources. Remain strictly limited for extent of the work required of project design;
given the magnitude of the geo-political issues involved with reducing/ring-fencing the
production of agro-narcotics, preparing messages that will assist with decision-making
within narcotics producer countries and, importantly, given the period of time available for
investment.
Action taken: improved networking within the key agencies represented within the PSC –
to provide for ‘ownership’, to ensure that key elements of the programme are introduced
to others (inside and outside the agencies) and by boosting the role of ‘communications’
within the industries involved. Herein is the basis of the ‘communications strategy’ that
has been in development during the period of reporting.

Currency exchange rates. Lack of stability with US$/€ exchange rates has seriously affected
the value of the original EC project investment; and with no sign of stability into the next
period. With formal documents for project agreement (EC/FAO) in euros, and letter of
agreement (FAO/contractor) in US dollars, issues will arise for a declining budget, payment
for work done and, importantly, for the delivery of the programme of activities planned
within project design.
Action taken: the issues have been noted and discussions are being held within the
executing agency and between the agency and the contractor – to determine a modus
operandi of how to proceed. Issues will be raised further as an aside to the proposed PSC
meeting scheduled for February 2007.
 D. Work plan and expected outputs for the next reporting period

For the reporting period and into the next six months, progress has largely followed the
original planning contained within the Project Agreement. Delays with start up have put the
programme of activities back of the order 3-4 months. Progress otherwise remains largely as
foreseen. Thus no additional changes are shown to the original work plan.

International workshop #2. The second of two workshops required of the project is expected to
be held for the end-2007 or beginning 2008 (and as close as possible to the proposed UNGASS
meeting scheduled for Shanghai PRC during early 2008). Planning, activities, missions, etc.
required with which to mobilise support and/or funding for this workshop are expected to
dominate project activities.
Outcome: concise and firm planning for the workshop proposed.

Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting #4. Key decisions are likely at the forthcoming PSC
meeting scheduled for February 2007, which will be hosted in Vienna by UNODC. An intense
period of lobbying in support of the modus operandi of the project is expected to follow.
Success or otherwise with lobbying will determine the venue, partnership arrangements, raison
d’^etre and resources that will be provided. It will also determine the orientation and approach
required – and thus the choice of invitees/delegates that are likely to attend, and location.
Outcome: improved management from/by the PSC, leading to improved design, etc. for the
second workshop; enhanced understanding of the many technical issues involved.

Project extension. The project agreement has duration of two years which, for convenience, will
cover the period March 2006 to mid-2008; to provide for maximum use of the period of
investment in support of the proposed UNGASS Agreement (which is currently scheduled for
post-March 2008). The donor has concurred with this period of activities, with the proviso that
no additional funds will be provided. FAO will request a formal extension of the project
agreement for an NTE of mid-2008.
Outcome: additional time in which to plan for post-workshop project activities in support of
counter-narcotics decision-making.
E. Reports
 Please list all reports, other than progress reports, but including consultants reports, finalized by the project
 during the reporting period only. Indicate for each of those:
 - Recommended for inclusion in FAO's computerized documentation system as it contains data/info suitable for future use.
 - It has been restricted by the Government as it contains confidential information.
 - It has been distributed, giving date if applicable. If not, please send 4 copies to the Responsible Operating Unit.
 Annexes Publications, etc. prepared during the period of reporting.
1. Workshop publications/Table 1. Total 22 documents, papers, PowerPt displays, etc.
prepared/presented in support of the first international workshop held in Berlin in May/June
2006.
2. Minutes. Meeting project steering committee January 2006.
3. Minutes. Meeting project steering committee June 2006.
4. Minutes. Meeting project steering committee September 2006.
5. Synthesis report. International Workshop ‘Beyond Alternative Development’.
6. FAO project progress report. Six months June-November 2006; contractor to supervisor.
7. Budget information.

 Concerning copies of annexes attached to this PPR. Note:
 1. All reports, papers, etc. should be included in the FAO computerized documentation
 system.
 2. None of the papers, reports, etc. contain confidential information.
 3. Copies sources as follows:
      Annex #1. Received from the contractor; shared with all participants at the first
         international workshop and with others within selected FAO, GTZ and UNODC
         networks.
      Annexes #2-#4. Received from the contractor; shared with all participants at PSC
         meetings and with the donor.
      Annex #5. Received from the contractor; shared with all participants at the first
         international workshop and with others within selected FAO, GTZ and UNODC
         networks.
      Annex #6. Received from the contractor; shared with the donor.
      Annex #7. Provided by PEA recipient donor; not shared.



 Reporting Officer
 Name: Peter Steele                                           Date: 22 December 2006


 Title: Consultant                                            Signature:

								
To top