Lesotho Highlands Water Project - LHWP | PORTAL Report 58 - rev0.pdf · Lesotho Highlands Water...

Report prepared for Lesotho Highlands Development Authority

Lesotho Highlands Water Project

Report 58

Report prepared by Environmental Panel of Experts

R Hitchcock, A Inambao, J Ledger & M Mentis

March 2011

Revision 1

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Executive summary of 51

Prepared by Prof Hitchcock & Drs Inambao, Ledger & Mentis Revision 1

Executive summary

1. The Panel of Environmental Experts (PoE) for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project

(LHWP) undertook a mission from 6-17 March 2011.

2. The purpose of the mission was to help develop and implement critical projects being

undertaken by the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA).

3. The critical projects addressed during the mission, and the way forward on each, were

briefly as follows. LHDA Compensation PoE was asked to review and comment on the Katse and Lejone audit action plan and advise on its adequacy to fast track payment of communal compensation for LLEs upstream of Katse Dam. There are 23 LLEs (co-operatives) upstream of Katse Dam. These LLEs were paid out M11 million in communal compensation. Recommended actions include ensuring of transparency in financial management, regular checks of LLE books and bank account information, enhancement of monitoring of communal compensation funds usage, doing a careful assessment of activities and projects of LLEs and providing lessons learned for future work, engaging in preventive action to reduce corrupt practices, and encouragement of LLE committees to pursue legal action against individuals who used funds for their own purposes or gave funds to others. On the downstream LLEs, of which there are 22 below Katse Dam, the Technical Assistance Unit should follow some of the same recommendations for the LLEs upstream. The Department of Co-operatives should be encouraged to expand the number of field officers working with LLEs. In both upstream and downstream LLEs more work needs to be done in enhancing income generating activities and community development projects (eg hammer mills, road and water system construction, houses for tourists, electrification). Careful work needs to be done on assessing the sustainability of income generating and community development activities and lessons learned must be built on by the TAU and the LLE members. This assessment should be a mix of desk-top reviews and on-site field investigations. Income generation/Technical Assistance Unit A review was undertaken of LLEs training provided/ facilitated by TAU officers and Income Generation Officers in the three branches of Katse, Mohale and ’Muela. In general, it was found that the training provided by the TAU and IGOs was adequate. It could be enhanced through a training of trainers approach, materials made available based on lessons learned from LLE income generating activities and community development. Constraints exist among community members because of relatively low levels of education in some cases and lack of experience in running projects and carrying out entrepreneurial activities. These could be circumvented in part through greater cooperation among LHDA, LLEs, DoC, community councils, local and central government, and non-government organizations in capacity-building at the local level.

Given the increasing rate of embezzlement of communal compensation by LLEs, a review was undertaken of the adequacy of the safeguard measures incorporated in the MOUs between LHDA and the LLEs to protect LLE’s funds against fraudulent practices. It was found that the MOUs as they stand are sufficient to safeguard against fraudulent practices. Efforts must be made to increase monitoring of LLE committee activities, bank accounts, and project management and implementation. Efforts must also be made to expand the training of LLE committees in accounting, financial management, income generating project activities and community development program work. Public relations LHDA met with internal stakeholders (affected communities) and external stakeholders (NGOs, service providers, Ministries, water consumers, general public). Engaging the internal stakeholders must continue. The (new) Chief must be seen take the lead in this, in both formal meetings and by ‘walk-abouts’ meeting staff and community people in their day-to-day activities, to build staff morale and have affected communities that they are taken seriously. Holding



external stakeholder workshops for the sake of tradition is not recommended. Rather maintain surveillance on external issues, treat the substantive ones directly, and address the false negative issues not by direct confrontation but rather by projecting a positive organization image. KFF pilot trout production PoE made a site visit to KFF and reviewed monthly Compliance and Progress reports for November and December 2010. The December report contains the same water quality monitoring results as the November report – a careless mistake. Lesotho Department of Environment has extended the KFF RoD to October 2011. KFF has applied to LHDA for extension of the pilot project into full-scale production. PoE is of the opinion that KFF has complied with most requirements. LHDA must convene a meeting with KFF to review the pilot phase and agree on a way forward. KFF’s concerns about biosecurity are valid and should be incorporated in the draft Lesotho Fisheries Regulations.

ICM PoE considered the report on performance of soil conservation structures in the Bela-Bela sub-catchment at ’Muela, and was conducted over site. The structures are performing well, but the initiative is too little. ’Muela reservoir and Matsoku weir are silting up alarmingly. The proper functioning of the LHWP is under threat. Improving the sustainability of catchment land-use is a critical and strategic issue that requires FOBs to be capacitated to implement the physical work as well as extension. Every opportunity must be seized to widen the economy of the Highlands, reducing dependence on exploitative use of soil and vegetation resources. Workshop the priorities and implementation design.

Instream flow requirements To address the forthcoming consideration of 2

nd tranche compensation

payment for communities downstream of Phase 1A structures, LHDA should commission an independent assessment to make recommendations based on existing monitoring data, PoE Reports and a specially designed field monitoring study. Monitoring of water quality, hydrology and geomorphology should continue in-house for the moment, but an IFR methods workshop – including social IFR monitoring, might be staged in early 2013. Community infrastructure development PoE considered the issues and challenges concerning the management of community infrastructural development covering the 321 resettlements where communities are required to identify suitable and sustainable development programs; upon which LHDA would provide the required financial support that is supposed to be proportionate to the number of resettled individuals in the area. This is supposed to be coordinated with the relevant government ministries. The challenge faced by the program is that LHDA does not provide indicative budgets to enable the communities to plan on, as a result of which communities have tended to choose projects that are costly and would require continued support from government which does not have adequate resource base. Furthermore, LHDA has been slow to respond to some of the proposals for development from the communities. The non-availability of the size of the budgets on community development support is viewed by beneficiaries as lack of transparency in the way LHDA is handling the issue. LHDA should adopt an open policy and inform communities on how much is available for development as well as work with the traditional and civic leadership to determine viable and sustainable development projects.

LHDA performance indicators Performance indicators (PIs) list the things that must be got right, and show the degree to which the essentials are satisfied. PoE supports perseverance with the initiative. LHDA Executive and Managers should buy-into PI reporting (or come up with a better substitute). This should be done by Executive and Manager review, revision, refinement and updating. Current PIs overlook some critical issues, such as progress towards a decision on 2

nd tranche compensation

payment downstream of Phase 1a structures, and construction of a barrier to protect the Maloti Minnow on the Senqunyane River. The present PIs include outcome targets, but they also need to cover performance on processes that ensure targets are met (eg preventive maintenance, scheduled inspections, emergency reporting, emergency drills). Monthly PI reporting by each Manager is recommended as a means focusing management on the things that LHDA must get right.

Strategic planning issues PoE review of the LHDA SP found that the plan requires refining its strategic imperatives in such a way that they clearly lead to addressing issues and challenges likely to compromise its performance and institutional image, promote staff loyalty and improve morale. The LHDA SP analysis did not include a critical internal analysis of management and structural issues



likely to contribute to reduced performance and increased staff turnover. PoE felt that the development of the SP appears to have been constrained by staff anxiety to avoid critiquing management processes and cultures that might be seen as criticizing management, and yet intentions to have these concerns addressed were expressed in the Key Focus Areas statements. Currently the state of readiness of LHDA to meet her mandate to achieve the vision of being one of the best managed water management organizations in the world is decreasing due to the high staff turnover, low staff moral and the failure for the organization to translate plans into action. The organization seem to have concentrated on process and performance and lowered its management of the actors (staff), resulting in failure to effectively manage the translation of plans into action in a timely manner. PoE recommends that LHDA undertakes a joint review of the SP using a multilevel joint workshop to enable appreciation of the strategic roles of individuals in the organization using an outsider to instil team spirit among the different levels of responsibilities in the organization. Maloti Minnow Terms of Reference and Project Brief for construction of barrier(s) and access road were reviewed. The documents lack clarity and must be revised to reflect that there are two very clear and different options for barrier construction on the Senqunyane River, and the EIA Consultant must review the options and recommend one. Work previously conducted by the Lesotho Biodiversity Trust, with input from LHDA engineers, identified one site for a weir at Ha Ts’oeute with a 6.6 km access road and another site for a meander cut waterfall at Ha Nteso with some 2 km further from the weir site. These options have widely differing logistic and cost implications and need to be better stated in the ToR and Project Brief. PoE recommends that a Maloti Minnow Consultant be appointed to oversee this and other urgent interventions. PoE Report # 56 flagged the issue: Maloti Minnow conservation has now become a strategic issue of crisis proportions. Six month later, the crisis has deepened. KLM WATSAN PoE was informed that a new RFP for the construction of VIPs, Waste Disposal Pits and Water systems for Katse, Lejone and Masuku areas has been advertised and a number of bidders have applied. The RFP contained a request to construct the systems based on precast standard designs and did not provide for proposals for innovative designs. PoE believes that the process has excluded innovation or adoption of newer technologies to reduce the costs and improve efficiency and safety of human waste disposal in an environment where pollution of water sources and water tables are important. PoE recommends that an addendum to the RFP/Tender be added to include proposal for innovative systems such as the Hydroloo which would be cheaper and more efficient to use in current circumstances. Phase 2 issues Terms of reference have been prepared for appointment of one Environmental and one Social Specialist to draw up terms of reference (ToRs) for environmental and social impact assessment and management in Phase 2. The appointed individuals and parent organizations should not otherwise be involved in Phase 2. This condition, coupled with the requirements for expertise and experience, are going to make it difficult to make appointments. Alternative development of ToRs (in-house) might be necessary. ToRs to conduct an EIA for construction of a measuring weir and access road at Polihali require revision (inconsistencies, presentation, typographical errors, etc).

4. The Panel thanks LHDA and the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission for friendliness,

help and hospitality, and appreciates the smooth running of the Mission.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Contents of 51


Contents

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6

Critical projects .......................................................................................................................... 8

1. LHDA compensation ...................................................................................................... 8

2. Income generation/Technical Assistance Unit.............................................................. 11

3. Public relations.............................................................................................................. 12

4. KFF pilot trout production ............................................................................................ 13

5. ICM ............................................................................................................................... 14

6. Instream flow requirements .......................................................................................... 17

7. Community infrastructure development ....................................................................... 20

8. LHDA performance indicators ..................................................................................... 20

9. Strategic planning issues ............................................................................................... 24

10. Maloti Minnow .......................................................................................................... 25

11. KLM WATSAN ........................................................................................................ 26

12. Phase 2 issues ............................................................................................................ 27

Appendix 1 Compensation principles and practices in LHWP ..................................... 28

Appendix 5 Technical notes .......................................................................................... 33

Appendix 6a The decision rules .................................................................................... 40

Appendix 6b ToR framework for short-term IFR monitoring ...................................... 41

Appendix 9 LHDA Strategic Plan ................................................................................. 43

Appendix 10 Senqunyane Access Investigation Trip ................................................... 44

Appendix 11 KLM WATSAN ...................................................................................... 49

Appendix 12 ToRs for environmental and social specialists ........................................ 50

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Introduction of 51


Introduction

The Panel of Environmental Experts (PoE) for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP)

undertook a mission from 6 to 17 March 2011. The mission was attended by Professor Bob

Hitchcock and Drs Amusaa Inambao, John Ledger and Mike Mentis.

The overall objective of the Mission was to provide the Lesotho Highlands Development

Authority (LHDA) with an independent evaluation of its operations, identifying where things

might be going wrong, how LHDA might improve its performance, and providing guidance

on best practice. The specific terms of reference (ToRs) for the Mission were as follows.

Task # Issue Action

1. LHDA

compensation Review and comment on the Katse and Lejone LLEs

audit action plan and advise on its adequacy to fast-

track payment of communal compensation for LLEs

upstream of Katse Dam.

2. Income

generation/

Technical

Assistance Unit

Review LLE‟s training provided / facilitated by TAU

officers and Income Generation Officers in the three

branches of Katse, Mohale and „Muela and recommend

actions for improvement and sustainability on this

matter.

Given the increasing rate of embezzlement of

communal compensation by LLEs, review the

adequacy of the safeguard measures incorporated in the

MOUs between LHDA and the LLEs to protect LLEs

funds against fraudulent practices and advise LHDA on

the best ways possible.

3. Public Relations Critically review the processes towards hosting LHDA

annual external stakeholders‟ conferences and the

resulting evaluation reports thereof. Advise LHDA on

the best practices to making this review a worthwhile

course to improving LHWP‟s image.

Review the LHDA external stakeholders‟ score card

and LHDA performance against this score-card to date

and advise on the most appropriate steps in undertaking

external stakeholders evaluation and scoring.

4. KFF pilot trout

production Review and comment on KFF latest monthly progress

report(s) and advise accordingly.

5. ICM Review the updated report on the performance of the

soil and water conservation works at ‟Muela post the

recent heavy rainfall.

6. Instream Flow

Requirements

(IFR)

Provide expert advice on how best to sustain IFR

activities in the absence of key IFR monitoring experts

such as Fish and Vegetation specialists and the IFR

Coordinator.

7. Community Review LHDA approach of implementing the

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Introduction of 51


Task # Issue Action

infrastructure

development

community infrastructure development program and

advise on how to make both internal and external

stakeholders, to appreciate the challenges and how to

overcome any bottle-necks.

8. LHDA

performance

indicators

Review progress on LHDA Performance Indicators

since the last mission and advise accordingly.

9. Strategic

planning issues Following POE review of LHDA five years rolling

Strategic Plan during the previous mission, assess the

readiness of LHDA to meet her mandate given the

current staff turn-over within the organisation.

10. Maloti Minnow

conservation Critically review and comment on the Project Brief of

the Maloti Minnow conservation.

Review and comment on the revised TORs to

undertake EIA for construction of barriers to conserve

Maloti Minnow and access road to the barrier site.

11. KLM WATSAN Critically review and comment on the TORs for

outsourcing KLM WATSAN and advise on the new

technologies that can be adopted to ensure completion

of this project.

12. Phase 2 Issues Critically review and advise LHDA on the

comprehensiveness of the terms of reference (TORS)

for the Environmental and Social specialists for Phase

2.

Critically review and comment on the Project Brief of

the construction of the weir and access road at Polihali

under Phase 2.

Review and comment on the TORs to undertake the

EIA for construction of the weir and access road at

Polihali.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Critical projects of 51


Critical projects

Project Present situation Recommendation Finish date

1. LHDA compensation

The Katse and Lejone LLEs Audit Action Plan of January, 2011

was assessed. It was found that many of the LLEs had financial

problems, with funds missing, poor accounting practices, evidence

of financial malfeasance, and lack of information on individuals

who are deceased. There are 23 LLEs (co-operatives) upstream of

Katse Dam. These LLEs were paid out M11 million in communal

compensation. At least 11 of the 23 LLEs had evidence of financial

problems with recommendations for follow-ups on debtors,

investigation of bank balances and bank charges, and the need for

follow-ups with the Department of Co-operatives (DoC) legal

section.

Encourage LLE

committees to pursue

legal action against

individuals who used

funds for their own

purposes or gave funds to

others

2011-04-30

The practice of LLE paying dividends was reported to have

continued in after LHDA advised LLEs to stop paying

dividends – this has continued in a few LLE.

Do follow-ups with the

DoC Legal Section

2011-04-30

Carry out new audits and

ensure better account

keeping through regular

checks of LLE books and

bank accounts

2011-06-30

Upgrade training in

accounting and financial

management by IGOs

and Co-ops officers

2011-05-31

Enhance the oversight

of communal

compensation funds

usage

2011-04-30

Prevent LLEs from 2011-03-31



paying out dividends to

members

Investigate bank charges

that are suspicious and

require banks to repay

LLEs if they have

overcharged them

2011-06-30

In cases where LLEs

are paying themselves

dividends, FOBs

should liaise with the

legal section of the

Department of

Cooperatives to issue

general directives to

stop the practice with

immediate effect and to

prosecute those who

persist in the practice.

2011-05-31

Do careful assessments

of activities and projects

of LLEs and provide

lessons learned for future

work

2011-05-31

When new LLE

committees are elected,

ensure that they are

trained quickly

2011-04-30

DoC has not been able to regularly undertake support

supervision visits through which LLE would have been

guided and advised on their operations, because DoC lacks

resource.

LHDA should provide

resource support to

DoC in terms of

transport and other

logistical arrangements

2011-06-30



to facilitate

undertaking joint

support supervision of

LLEs. A quick assessment of the membership carried out on a sample of

LLE visited in the field found that a small but significant number

of individuals were not members of LLEs and therefore were

excluded from profiting from the communal compensation given

through LLEs. PoE was of the opinion that the difficulties that lead

to the formation of LLEs as cooperatives could be overcome by

involving traditional and civic leadership as community Trustees

that would be monitoring the use of financial resources by the LLE

committees. Although the MoUs clearly state that all affected

households are members of LLE, the adoption of the

cooperative principle that requires membership subscription

has led to those not able to pay subscription being excluded

from membership of particular LLE. The membership to LLE

could be made universal by payment of a small percentage of the

compensation into a separate LLE management account to cover

every member of the community.

LHDA initiate the

inclusion of traditional

and civic leadership in

the monitoring and

supervision of LLE by

change of the MOU

2011-05-31

LHDA develop new

TORs for LLEs to

incorporate the inclusion

of all members of the

community in the

organization

(membership to LLE

should be part of the

compensation paid to

each LLE by LHDA to

ensure that each

affected individual or

family is a member of

2011-05-31



the LLE)

2. Income generation/Technical Assistance Unit

A review was undertaken of LLE‟s training provided/ facilitated by

TAU officers and Income Generation Officers in the three

branches of Katse, Mohale and „Muela and actions for

improvement and sustainability on this matter called for. In

general, the training undertaken by TAU officers and IGOs in the

three FOBs is viewed as adequate. More work needs to be done in

enhancing income generating activities and community

development projects (eg hammer mills, road and water system

construction, houses for tourists, and electrification). TAU and

IGOs have both requested further training for themselves in order

to enhance their training delivery, as well as the production of

materials that can be used in training. Constraints exist among

community members because of relatively low levels of education

in some cases and lack of experience in running projects and

carrying out entrepreneurial activities. These could be

circumvented through greater cooperation among LHDA, LLEs,

DoC, community councils, local and central government, and non-

government organizations in capacity-building at the local level.

Review current projects

to determine the

sustainability of the

income generating

projects being

implemented or planned

2011-05-31

Enhance TAU training

programs by making

them relevant to the

needs of the community

2011-05-31

Improve training by

development and

production of appropriate

and relevant materials

suitable for training of

the communities

2011-06-15

Encourage Dept of Co-

operatives to expand

number of field officers

available to assist TAU

and IGOs

2011-05-31



Given the increasing rate of embezzlement of communal

compensation by LLEs, a review was undertaken of the adequacy

of the safeguard measures incorporated in the MOUs between

LHDA and the LLEs to protect LLEs funds against fraudulent

practices. It was found that the MOUs as they stand are sufficient

to safeguard against fraudulent practices. Efforts must be made to

increase monitoring of LLE committee activities, bank accounts,

and project management and training of committees and

community members.

The best way to deal with

these practices is to

increase monitoring of

LLE committee activities

through the establishment

of a resident community

monitoring body

consisting of the village

Chief and Counsellor and

LHDA personnel

2011-04-30

3. Public relations

LHDA external stakeholders

annual conference and score

card

LHDA has two types of stakeholder engagement – (a) with the

affected communities (internal stakeholders), and (b) with other or

external stakeholders.

Continue to engage

affected communities,

but consider dropping the

annual workshop with

external stakeholders

2011-04-30

Regular and frequent engagement with the affected communities

will probably always be necessary. Though LHDA might be well

aware of affected community wants and needs, and its own level of

service delivery, the perception of LHDA‟s caring and

responsiveness are important. Ideally, if the parties (LHDA and the

communities) engage and communicate, the efficiency with which

tasks are performed is liable to be high – collaboration rather than

destructive conflict. In particular, top management (the CEO)

should be seen to take the lead role at both formal gatherings and

in „walk abouts‟. To do this the (new) CEO must have not only a

good understanding of the various facets of LHDA‟s operations,

but must have people skills – this contributes to staff morale and

belief by the communities that they are taken seriously.

Engagement of affected

communities must be led

by the top executive, with

the (new) chief appearing

at formal meetings and

undertaking „walk

abouts‟ to meet staff and

community people in

their day-to-day activities

2011-04-30

Regarding the external stakeholders, again, at this stage in LHWP

LHDA should have a good idea of issues, and holding a workshop

for the sake of tradition is likely to have limited benefit. However,

LHDA should maintain surveillance on stakeholder issues.

Negatives on LHDA should be addressed. Of course if there are

real defects in LHDA function then the remedy is to fix the defect.

In the case of substantive

negative issues from

external stakeholders,

treat each issue on its

merits – meet relevant

stakeholders, fix the

2011-04-30



This might mean workshopping with relevant internal and external

stakeholders, and adjusting the administration and management.

Where allegations and perceptions are against LHDA and are false,

the contemporary PR thinking is not to oppose these head-on (this

is believed to advertise the false information), but rather to project

a positive image of LHDA to the degree that it swamps the

negatives.

administration and

management. In the case

of untruthful allegations

on LHDA, preferably do

not counter head-on but

project a positive image

of LHDA

The score card is rendered redundant by the above. In any case, the

score card method is useful on specific known issues where the

organization wants to measure the stakeholder‟s perceptions of

shortcomings and progress. The score card method is not helpful

about unknowns – the Black Swans.

Dispense with the score

card, maintain

surveillance of issues,

counter negative false

issues with positive PR,

and workshop

substantive negative

issues with parties

concerned

2011-04-30

4. KFF pilot trout production

Three PoE members visited KFF on 10 March 2011 and were

taken onto the water to see the facility. New cages have been

acquired, as well as a new barge for servicing the operation.

LHDA management

should visit KFF to see

the new equipment

2011-06-30

The KFF Compliance and Progress Reports for November and

December 2010 were reviewed. The December report has a

careless repetition of water quality monitoring results from the

November report. The latter report includes a Biosecurity Initial

Report. KFF told PoE that it has not been involved as a stakeholder

in development of draft fisheries regulations for Lesotho.

Biosecurity issues are important to the aquaculture industry in

Lesotho and principles of biosecurity should be incorporated into

Fisheries Regulations. KFF are pioneers of aquaculture in Lesotho

and, as interested and affected parties, they should be invited to

participate in the process of drafting fisheries regulations.

KFF to correct the

December report and

submit reports for

January and February

2011

2011-03-31

KFF to participate in

drafting of Fisheries

Regulations.

2011-04-30

KFF has requested LHDA to approve rights to expand the pilot



phase into full production. KFF complains that another party has

been given rights to produce cage trout in Katse before the

conclusion of the KFF pilot project. The grievance is

understandable and LHDA‟s impartiality could be questioned.

LHDA should be the referee and apply the rules consistently.

Questions about whether KFF has complied with the conditions of

the MOU and RoD have been raised by LHDA. PoE‟s view is that

most (if not all conditions) have been met, or can be ironed out by

constructive engagement. PoE believes that there are no outstanding

issues that cannot be resolved by discussion and negotiation. PoE

supports a competitive environment for aquaculture investors, and

uncertainty around conditions and requirements for operators should

be removed as far as possible.

Production – the MOU and RoD both indicate production of 300

tons pa. It seems clear that this is a maximum rather than a

minimum. PoE suggests that as production has reached close to

300 t/a, further debate is not warranted.

Water quality issues – KFF has reported regularly on water

quality and there do not seem to be serious areas of concern.

Spikes in some readings have been noted and discussed.

Training of community members – KFF has trained and

employed a number of people from Ha Lejone; details are

contained in monthly reports.

Monitoring of sediment beneath cages – PoE is aware that

sediment samples have been taken and are currently being

analysed.

Mid-year review – if this is outstanding, KFF must be required to

comply.

Business viability – PoE understands that KFF has supplied

figures that confirm the viability of the business.

LHDA to convene a

meeting with KFF to

review and conclude the

pilot phase, resolve any

outstanding issues, and

make a decision on

expanded production.

2011-04-30

5. ICM

Report on soil conservation

measures at ‟Muela PoE was provided with a report on the performance of the soil

conservations structures in the Bela-Bela sub-catchment during the

Adopt catchment

management as a core

2011-04-30



past summer, and PoE made a site visit. The structures withstood

the heavy rains well. There are too few of these structures in the

‟Muela catchment, and all structures need maintenance. ‟Muela

reservoir is silting up alarmingly (at least by visual inspection), and

this applies equally to Matsoku weir, to the extent that proper

functioning of the engineering systems is threatened. PoE

comprises environmentalists not engineers, but PoE warrants that

the siltation problem requires treatment of the cause – non-

sustainable land-use.

function

As a first step in

capacitating ICM,

appoint 2-3 additional

staff to each FOB to

work primarily on ICM

in collaboration with

each FOB team

2011-06-30



Build soil conservation

structures (as done in

Bela-Bela) – the

priorities are other sub-

catchments at ‟Muela,

and in the Matsoku

catchment upstream of

the weir

Start 2011-

07-01. On-

going

Present LHDA commitment to making catchment land-use more

sustainable is inadequate. Since PoE October 2010 mission ICM

work has been transferred to FOBs, but without augmenting human

resources and budgets. There are no quick-fixes. Physical soil

conservation structures are required. The community mindset

needs to be transformed. The economy of the Highlands must be

shifted from dependence on exploitative use of soil and vegetation

to softer kinds of land-use such as tourism, recreation, water and

power production, etc. The scale of the problem is huge. Unless the

siltation issue is resolved, or at least eased, LHWP might bury

itself within a few decades. The situation is not beyond rescue. It is

reported that in South Africa, sediment loads in rivers have

decreased to 40% of the rate in the mid-1900s. This has occurred,

at least in part, by aggressive agricultural extension services,

improved sustainability and productivity of agriculture, and a

widening of the rural economy. Holding meetings with government

ministries to get their buy-in might be necessary, but unless and

Maintain and improve the

construction soil

conservation structures

recommended above

Start 2011-

07-01. On-

going



until LHDA takes primary responsibility for actually doing the

work, no effective progress is likely.

Undertake extension

work to improve the

sustainability and

productivity of

agricultural practices (eg

limited tillage, inter-

cropping, withdrawal of

non-productive land from

cultivation and grassing

of it, etc)

Start 2011-

07-01. On-

going

Widen the rural economy

– facilitate development

of tourism, recreation,

time-share, trout

production, renewable

energy power production,

investing in government

bonds & other such non-

consumptive profit

initiatives

On-going

There are innumerable ICM tasks that could be performed, and it is

necessary to prioritize and design implementation. Each FOB has

its own characteristics, so each FOB should draft its priorities and

plans, and these should workshopped (indoor and outdoor with

relevant staff from all FoBs meeting together, engaging in critical

and constructive debate, and pooling knowledge) among the FOBs

with PoE.

With FOBs capacitated,

hold an ICM workshop to

identify priorities for

each FOB, and design the

implementation (see

opposite under Present

Situation)

2011-08-31

While on site, PoE is asked many questions on technical issues.

Answering all these queries is not feasible in PoE reports, and such

matters are ideally material for workshops. Nevertheless some

technical notes are provided in Appendix 5.

6. Instream flow requirements

Sustaining IFR monitoring LHDA has lost in-house staff capacity to undertake IFR vegetation Prepare ToR for an 2011-12-01



and fish monitoring.

The Decision Rules on whether to pay 2nd

tranche downstream

compensation require monitoring information on vegetation and

fish (Appendix 6a). The decision rules are generous to the cause

for downstream compensation.

A decision on 2nd

tranche payment for IFR reaches 1, 2 and 3 is

due in 2012.

It is implausible that LHDA can now recruit staff to undertake the

necessary vegetation and fish monitoring, but even if that were

possible there ideally needs to be an independent assessment of the

evidence, with gaps filled in as best possible, in the remaining

months of 2011.

independent assessment

of the evidence against

the decision rules

(suggested framework in

Appendix 6b), appoint a

consultant to expedite,

and have the consultant

submit a final report by

December 2011

There is a risk that, if left to her/his own devices, the riparian bush

and fish monitoring does not address the relevant issues in a

statistically acceptable way. To contain risks the Consultant should

deliver monthly reports covering the progress the past month and

plan for the next month.

Involve PoE throughout

the monitoring process,

with monthly reports

from the Consultant and

discussion involving

Consultant, LHDA and

PoE

Every

month

The affected downstream communities have expressed interest in

seeing the results of monitoring. It is not feasible to have

monitoring attended by hordes of people, but it is realistic to have

one or two community representatives attending the sampling. For

example, a community representative (or two) might accompany

the observer in the riparian bush assessment. While community

attendance does have risks, it is an opportunity to show and explain

river resource dynamics, and be transparent about it. The

communities must be cooperative – forewarned and given

advanced notice they should please be punctual.

Invite communities to

send 1-2 representatives

to attend monitoring, and

use this as an opportunity

to show and explain

resource dynamics

2011-04-30

In addition to riparian bush and fish monitoring, LHDA should

continue with water quality, hydrology and geomorphology in-

house.

Continue monitoring

water quality, hydrology

and geomorphology, and

workshop the methods

after the riparian bush

and fish monitoring

2012-03-31



exercise for 2nd

tranche

payment is completed

Social IFR monitoring is being developed. PoE understands that

the Consultant‟s proposals might be tabled soon. However, LHDA

has limited resources and it is necessary to focus on the crisis of

the moment (ie the riparian bush and fish monitoring to inform 2nd

tranche payment).

Include social IFR

monitoring in the

methods workshop

mentioned in the above

bullet

2012-03-31

World Bank Paper Number 200 authored by Haas LJM, Mazzei L

& O‟Leary TJ 2010 entitled Lesotho Highlands Water Project:

Communications Practices for Governance and Sustainability

Improvement states as follows.

…the incidence of woody vegetation, economically the most valuable resource for cooking and heating for highland dwellers, increased rather than declined as predicted. The predicted loss of this vital resource was the basis for more than half of the total compensation payments. According to the LHDA report, this increase in the incidence of woody vegetation was caused by new trees colonizing in the channel islands. This seems to be due to the failure to implement the prescribed flushing flows that would otherwise have removed vegetation as predicted in the EFs studies. However, with the overtopping flood at Katse in 2006 and expected future floods, it is expected that most of the in-channel trees will be removed. This, together with the progressively reduced number of cuttings and seeds to reach these sites (because they will be trapped behind the dam), means that it is likely that, over time, the woody vegetation will decline, as predicted…

The World Bank does not cite PoE Reports nor the article by

Mentis MT & Ledger JA 2005 The effects of reduced river flows

on woody vegetation which LHDA put on its website. The implicit

assumption that vegetation increases are constrained by the

availability of plant propagules is equivalent to believing that the

human population would increase if men produced more sperm.

Plainly, riparian bush propagules on downstream reaches are

superabundant, and the amount of bush is constrained by living

conditions. But nothing will be gained fighting with the World

Bank – that might draw attention to an untruth (see Public

Do not react to dubious

claims about riparian

bush decreases, but rather

concentrate on improving

IFR monitoring and

reporting

On-going



Relations above) – and rather LHDA should pursue improving its

IFR monitoring and reporting.

7. Community infrastructure development

Community development programs have been slow and uncertain

in funding as LHDA does not provide information on the funding

levels as well as availability of funding. And recently, the advent

of the municipal councils has led to the call for the funds to be

channelled through area councils.

LHDA needs to develop

a resource directory for

each area to enable the

communities to use that

information to choose

and select viable and

sustainable projects

2011-04-15

The determination of the nature of community development

currently is based on dealing with development needs not covered

or provided for through government efforts. This has led to

selection of issues that may be way beyond the sustainable

maintenance of these projects by the LHDA support.

LHDA through the FoB

should hold consultation

meetings with area

authorities to identify

viable projects that would

be sustainable

2011-04-30

Collaboration with relevant government agencies to participate in

the planning and implementation of the development projects is

currently weak and the arrangements for handing over these

projects are weakened by the government‟s lack of resources.

LHDA should hold area

development planning

meetings with

communities and relevant

government agencies to

identify development

programs that would

visibly contribute to the

development of the

communities

2011-05-15

8. LHDA performance indicators

Review progress since last

PoE mission PoE Report 56 contained several recommendations, and the

January 2011 Performance Indicator Report was provided for PoE

to assess progress.

PoE recommended that PI reporting be continued. LHDA is

pursuing the reporting on a monthly basis. Reporting is in places

too narrow, eg PI Report January 2011 says KFF has not submitted

its January report, but whether KFF is otherwise up to date is not

reflected. A 2- or 3-month „snapshot‟ might be fairer than the

Continue PI reporting.

Consider expanding

some the indicators to

cover the past 2 or 3

months not just the past

On-going



current month-by-month applied in some instances. month

PoE recommended review, revision and refinement of the

indicators, ensuring they cover all relevant issues, and they truly

measure performance, by 2011-01-31. Reported progress on this is

that review of LHDA indicators requires Board approval. PoE

understands that reviewed and revised indicators have not been

prepared to submit to Board, and getting Board approval (as

necessary as that might be) is liable to add to organizational inertia.

However, the fact that revision is not in effect reflects badly on

organizational performance. The PIs list what LHDA must get

right. The list must be updated continuously – completed items

deleted, new items added, and current items modified if necessary.

Compensation payment to LLEs downstream of Mohale is

effected. The item is history. Some items previously pointed out –

Maloti Minnow barrier, 2nd

tranche payments – are still missing

from the PIs. Since PoE Report 56, ICM is now an item deserving

of measurement, but it does appear under the PIs. If the system of

PI reporting cannot be made and kept relevant we have the

oxymoron of performance measuring not performing well. This is

not simply an M&E function. As recommended in PoE Report 56,

the PI initiative (or an equivalent process) buy-in by Managers is

necessary – if performance is measured then shortcomings can be

identified and remedied. Without „measuring‟ how does one know

where and how to intervene/manage? The Executive and Managers

must review, revise and refine the PIs, ensuring their

appropriateness and relevance (see below). Ideally each Manager

should submit a monthly report on her/his PIs. The report format

can be systematized for each Manager‟s situation, so report writing

is a matter of filling in the new numbers, or updating, and some

annotation and explanation.

LHDA Executive and

Managers review, revise

and refine performance

indicators, and obtain all

necessary approvals.

Consider monthly

Manager PI reporting.

2011-05-31

PoE recommended that corrective measures be developed and

included in the reporting matrix, to show corrective action, people

responsible, timelines and follow-up. The reported progress on this

is that LHDA management has been sensitized, as confirmed by

the monthly performance indicator reports from Managers.

Work on the PIs to

indicate where corrective

action is needed, then

develop corrective

measures including

2011-05-31



However, the insertion of corrective measures in the PI Report is

not evident.

action, people

responsible, timelines

and follow-up

PoE recommended that LHDA Executive get buy-in from all

Managers on the PI system, otherwise come up with a better

substitute. It is reported that Managers are to workshop the issue in

March 2011. The workshop should include the Managers

„sharpening‟ up the PIs appropriate to each management area (see

more below).

Ensure Manager buy-in

of PI system (otherwise

come up with a better

substitute) by a workshop

that includes review,

revision and refinement

of PIs

2011-04-30

The PI January 2011 Report does not reflect the poor performance of

LHDA, as indicated by the current situation.

The delivery tunnel from ‟Muela to Ash River is non-functional

The ‟Muela hydropower station is not functioning

The ‟Muela reservoir is silting up at an alarming rate

The transfer tunnel from Mohale to Katse is closed

The transfer tunnel from Matsoku to Katse is closed

The Matsoku weir is silting up alarmingly

Lower level galleries at Katse are flooded

The low level outlets at Katse cannot be operated

The Katse mini-hydropower station is non-functional

Katse is about to spill, unavoidably

No progress was made on assessing 2nd

tranche compensation

payments since PoE Report 56

Construction of 1 517 VIPs and 88 water systems still outstanding

on Phase 1 WATSAN, and insufficient funds

The ICM function has been handed to FOBs without capacitation

A barrier on the Senqunyane to protect Maloti Minnow is not

constructed

Fish monitoring of reservoir fish stocks and to assess threats to the

Minnow is not being undertaken

LHDA has been without a Chief Executive for >5 years

In review, revision and

refinement of PIs at

workshop with Managers

consider including

additional PIs that

measure process

(preventive maintenance,

scheduled inspections,

emergency reporting,

emergency drills)

2011-04-30



The above is equivalent to a risks & issues log – the important things

that require LHDA‟s action. The PI system must enable such a log to

be prepared, and updated, easily, and LHDA must act effectively on

it. The fact that much of the engineering system is currently non-

functional shows that LHDA is apparently not controlling its risks

adequately. How come? In addition to the other PI shortcomings

already mentioned, the current PIs measure against outcome targets

and do not include enough measurement of processes that ensure the

targets are hit. Examples of process include preventive maintenance,

scheduled inspections, emergency reporting, emergency drills on

worst case scenarios, etc.

Urgently refine the

opposite risks & issues

log.

2011-04-30

For each item on the risks

& issues log devise

appropriate controls –

action, correction,

prevention, emergency

preparedness & response

2011-04-30

Follow-up on the controls

implemented, review &

revise, and update the

risks & issues log.

Monthly



9. Strategic planning issues

Current LHDA 5 Year Strategic Plan has identified 14 Key areas

of Focus which have covered most elements required by the

Mission statement. However, due to the incompleteness of the

internal environmental analysis process undertaken, LHDA has not

been able to effectively translate the strategic imperatives into

action.

LHDA should consider a

joint review of the

strategic plan involving

all the three levels (the

Commission, the Board

and LHDA to ensure

establishment of a

common vision

2011-06-30

Implementation of the various strategic options identified has not

been undertaken or has been delayed by a number of constraints

that include high staff turnover, low staff morale, and slow

decision making process due to what appears to be limited levels of

consultation between the various layers of administration and

policy.

Hold an institutional

management review to

identify and deal with the

reasons for staff

underperformance and

critical resignations

2011-05-30

The organization failure to fill up critical management positions

with substantive management executives and the reluctance to

retain experienced staff will continue to impact on LHDA‟s

performance.

LHDA has to make

concerted efforts to fill

the vacant position by the

end of the second quarter.

This may involve head

hunting for the right

individuals and would

require objectivity on

both parts of the head

authorities

2011-06-30

The imposition of decisions by higher authorities on LHDA

management continues to curtail its ability to respond to emerging

challenges in the field, and even in the appointments of personnel.

Establish a consultative

forum to set up

mechanisms for review

of performance. And

where possible the

various governing bodies

should allow those below

them to make decisions

and only intervene where

there is absolute need

2011-04-30



The strategic intentions in the plans have not been matched with

the organization‟s ability to implement due to staff shortages, job

insecurity and lack of definitive staff development plans.

Review the increasing

staff resignations and

find solution to stop and

attract more qualified

personnel in LHDA

2011-04-30

Personalised management practices at various levels have

negatively impacted on staff performance and the potential for

innovation due to job security concerns.

Although the performance based systems is in place, its use has not

been used to improve staff performance as rewards or sanctions

tied to the performance assessment levels are reported not to be

objectively applied to all individuals.

Review the application of

the performance

management system and

establish impartial

application of the system

in all divisions

2011-4-30

10. Maloti Minnow

PoE notes as follows

PoE Report 54 0f March 2010 recommended retaining the services

of a fish expert (formerly employed by the Lesotho Biodiversity

Trust)

A year later neither this fish expert nor any other has been

commissioned.

In the interim monitoring of invasive fish into Mohale, and the

status of wild and transplanted Maloti Minnow, has lapsed.

The Maloti Minnow is a critically endangered species, and threats

to this red data animal were flagged in the Phase 2b EIA.

LHDA has a Maloti Minnow Policy and Action Plan.

In PoE Report 56 of October 2010 identified Maloti Minnow

conservation has now become a strategic issue of crisis

proportions.

An option is for LHDA to appoint a consultant to implement the

Maloti Minnow Policy and Action Plan, monitoring the wild and

transplanted Minnow populations, monitoring the threats of

invader fish into Mohale, archiving all information and reports

Appoint a consultant to

implement the Maloti

Minnow Policy and

Action Plan.

2011-06-30



relevant to Maloti Minnow conservation, and acting as Champion

for Maloti Minnow conservation.

PoE reviewed the Project Brief and ToR for the EIA for the Maloti

Minnow conservation barrier(s) and access road. Both documents

are confusing and must be revised. The basic inadequacy is that

neither document takes into consideration the preliminary work

done by Lesotho Biodiversity Trust in 2007 to advance the issue of

barrier construction. An overview is provided in Appendix 10.

Briefly, LBT chartered a helicopter in 2007 to take three LHDA

engineers on a site visit to consider barrier options on the

Senqunyane River. They identified two possible sites, one at Ha

Ts‟oeute for a weir (6.6 km access road) and another at Ha Nteso

for a meander cut waterfall (2 km access road from weir site). The

Project Brief does not make it clear that these are both viable

options, and emphasises mainly with the meander cut option. PoE

has previously favoured a weir that can be built and maintained by

local workers. The meander cut is a high risk option and will

undoubtedly be more expensive.

LHDA revisit the

requirements for the ToR

and Project Brief and

rewrite the documents.

The EIA Consultant must

undertake the task of

considering both barrier

options

2011-04-30

11. KLM WATSAN

Resumption of KLM WATSAN has been initiated with a new RFP

for tender to construct the remaining VIPs, disposal pits and water

systems using the same technical drawings that have been used in

previous attempts. The RFP did not provide for use of different

models to increase efficiency and reduce costs in spite of the fact

that there are new toilet technologies that would be suitable for the

Highlands.

LHDA should add an

addendum to the tender

document to enable

inclusion of newer

technologies especially if

they are likely to save

costs on construction

2011-04-15

The new toilet technology available on the market is much simpler

to install, easier and cheaper to maintain and can be moved to a

new location should the household decide to relocate to a new site.

It does not encourage breeding vermin, has less smell and can thus

be located next to the dwelling. See Appendix 11.

The Project managers

should view the

Hydroloo on

www.SABiotech.co.za

2011-03-30

http://www.sabiotech.co.za/



12. Phase 2 issues

ToRs for environmental and

social specialists PoE considered the draft terms of reference. A marked up scan of

the ToRs is provided in Appendix 12. The requirements are

probably too restrictive. Fifteen years on identical projects –

impossible! No two projects are identical. Professionals with at

least 15 years such experience are likely to be scarce, and the pre-

qualifications would exclude able experienced middle-aged

professionals. The expertise and experience of potential appointees

are as important as the ToRs, and it might not be possible to find

suitable candidates. The text of the draft ToR is wordy and should

be trimmed.

Revise the ToRs in the

light of suggested

improvements in

Appendix 12. If suitable

appointees cannot be

found, prepare the

environmental and social

ToRs in-house

2011-04-30

ToRs to conduct an EIA for

construction of measuring

weir and access road at

Polihali

PoE considered the ToRs. A marked-up copy of the documents has

been returned to LHDA with suggestions for improved wording.

Some confusing wording in the document should be revised. Use

of the term “huge experience” in the case of the Environmental

Specialist is not appropriate; how much is “huge”?

Revise the ToRs

according to suggestions

in marked-up hard copy

2011-04-30

The Completed System Prior to the

Construction of the Privacy Enclosure

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Compensation of 51


Appendix 1 Compensation principles and practices in LHWP

The principles for compensation under the Lesotho Highlands Water Project were outlined in

1986 in the LHWP Treaty and the LHDA Order.

These principles were fully incorporated into LHDA‟s 1997 revision of its compensation and

rehabilitation policy (LHDA 1997). The revision was carried out in preparation for Phase 1B

of the Project, the Mohale Dam and associated infrastructure. It was based on then-current

international norms and on LHDA‟s own experience of Phase 1A of the Project – the Katse

Dam, the ‟Muela Dam, and the ‟Muela Hydropower Station and associated infrastructure, and

on the recommendations and experience of the World Commission on Dams and the World

Bank.

One of LHDA‟s legal obligations is to ensure that the LHDA “shall effect all measures to

ensure that members of local communities who will be affected by flooding, construction

works, or other similar Project-related causes, will be able to maintain a standard of living not

inferior to that obtaining at the time of first disturbance” (Kingdom of Lesotho 1986:27).

The LHDA Order of 1986 (Government of Lesotho and Government of South Africa 1986:3)

states that the LHDA shall “ensure that as far as reasonably possible, the standard of living

and the income of persons displaced by the construction of an approved scheme shall not be

reduced from the standard of living and the income existing prior to the displacement of such

persons.”

The compensation package of 1997 consisted of the following.

(1) Replacement of homes and other facilities (e.g. kraals – livestock pens - and latrines).

LHDA built new homes, according to a set of standard designs, at sites chosen by the

families. There was also provision for families to take the cash equivalent and build their own

new homes.

(2) Compensation for loss of arable land. Households moving out of the highlands gave up

their rights to the property and arable land for which they received compensation. They had

the option of choosing annual cash compensation, compensation in the form of grain, or lump

sum compensation for the losses of agricultural fields (calculated on the basis of estimates of

their productivity). Annual payments were to be made for 50 years. It should be noted that the

original compensation policy for Phase 1A had called for payments to be made for a total of

15 years, after which time it was anticipated that the households would have recovered to the

point where they were before first disturbance.

(3) Compensation for communal resources, including grazing, shrubs (used for firewood,

construction, or manufacturing of goods), thatching grass, and medicinal plants. This

compensation came in part in the form of the Rural Development Program (RDP).

(4) Replacement of community assets lost such as schools or churches.

(5) Relocation of graves and the holding of ceremonies at or around the time of re-interment.

(6) Cash payment for garden lands, which are generally are under 400 square meters, and

usually close to households, where fruit and vegetables are grown.

(7) A Disturbance Allowance paid to households for three years after relocation or

resettlement.

(8) In addition, there was to be a Minimum Threshold Payment for each project-affected

household whose minimum income fell below an estimated poverty level of 3,960 Maluti

(M7,558.80 at 2005 rates). It was to be provided in the form of cash as a top-up payment to



ensure that each affected household remained above the threshold level, and it was to be paid

annually for 10 years from the time of relocation or resettlement.

Communal compensation in the form cash and the Rural Development Program was provided

for losses of woody vegetation (e.g. thatching grass, fuel wood), fish, medicinal plants, and

other natural resources to project-affected communities. To participate in the RDP people

were required to form co-operatives, grazing associations or other kinds of local legal entities

(LLEs). The co-operatives enabled their members to purchase agricultural inputs and to

market their products, including seed potatoes and maize; the grazing associations were

intended to improve the management of the communal range; grain mills provided a service

where none was previously available; other components included tourism, infrastructure,

fisheries, health, water and sanitation and youth development

While the individual compensation and threshold payments were intended to ensure that

affected families were at least no worse off after than before resettlement, the 'communal

compensation' was meant to bring 'development' and improved standards of living both to the

affected families and to their hosts. It was recognised that dislocation of the Mohale

communities was likely to have particularly adverse consequences for people with little or no

land, for the old and dependent, for sick and disabled people, and even for young people with

no land rights. For them compensation for the loss of assets and of production could be quite

inadequate to prevent their falling into poverty. The provision for compensating the holders

of 'secondary rights' (see 5 above) and the Minimum Threshold Payment were designed to

prevent this. Despite the difficulties of implementing these policies, they were sincere

attempts by the LHDA to avoid harming the weak and the vulnerable.

LHDA, under its development programme, has supported a range of institutions and activities

including co-operatives, range management associations, and agricultural extension services

for the benefit of both the resettlers and their hosts. Co-operatives and LLEs are the

organizations that are legally constituted and which can receive and manage communal

compensation. Co-operatives s are upstream of the dams, or in the resettlement host villages

and receive compensation for communal resources lost by resettlers and “earned” by host

villages who are impacted by the greater population impacts of receiving resettlers. LLEs

receive communal compensation as a function of negative impacts caused by the reduction of

water in the rivers that flow past them. While there are disagreements as to the impacts of

reduction of waters (e.g. on downstream vegetation and fish populations), the first tranche of

compensation was paid to affected communities downstream.

In the Phase 1A project area all such organizations have been formed. There are 23

registered co-operatives in the Katse, Lejone, and Matsoku (“KLM” ) area, which have so far

been paid a total of approximately M 11 million. They have begun 22 businesses, while 13

more are in preparation. Downstream of the dam, 22 LLEs have been formed, which have so

far received M 27 million in compensation. Table 1 shows the numbers of co-ops and LLEs

in the LHWP Phase 1 Area. It can be seen that there are 131 co-ops and LLEs

Table 1 Co-operatives and Local Legal Entities (LLEs) in the LHWP Phase 1 Area

Area Upstream Downstream Total

Phase 1A Katse-Lejone-„Muela 23 22 45

Phase 1B Mohale 54 32 86

77 54 131



in the upstream and downstream areas. A total of 77 co-operatives have been planned for the

Phase 1 area (upstream). While some, including the seed potato and maize growing co-

operatives clearly flourished, at least at first, others are harder to assess. Co-operatives in

general have a record of being complicated to implement in Lesotho, and people tend to be

wary of committing their own resources to them. Individuals may enrol as members on a

tentative basis, to see if the co-operative brings any tangible benefits, and if not they leave

after a year or two. The number of co-operatives established therefore gives no assurance that

they will survive or thrive. The Department of Co-operatives of the Ministry of Agriculture is

understaffed and the support it is able to offer new co-operatives and LLEs at the early and

crucial stages of their development is therefore limited. LHDA should encourage the DoC to

hire additional qualified staff to work with IGOs and TAU personnel.

Based on two recently compiled reports (2011), the Katse and Lejone LLEs Audit Action

Report Derived from Latest Audit (January, 2011) and the Report on Status of Embezzlement

of LLE Funds, LLEs Downstream of Katse Dam (February, 2011) it is clear that many of the

co-operatives and LLEs are having difficulties in managing funds, ensuring appropriate

expenditures, record-keeping, and project implementation. Recommendations have been

made in this POE report as to how to address some of these issues, including pursuing legal

action against wrong-doers, enhancing monitoring and auditing of LLE finances,

investigating potential bank overcharges, expanding the training of IGO and TAU personnel

and of LLEs, following up issues with the DoC Legal Section, engaging in preventative

actions to reduce corruption, improved reporting systems, and carrying out new audits

expeditiously. Lack of entrepreneurial skills among LLE members has resulted in some high

operating costs that culminated in substantial losses Getting around these problems will

require greater cooperation among stakeholders in capacity-building and sustainable project

implementation. Efforts must also be made to expand the training of LLE committees in

accounting, financial management, income generating project activities and community

development program work.

As LHDA's resettlement and compensation programme draws to a close, and funding for its

various components, including the RDP, terminates, the question of sustainability becomes

paramount. Without detailed socioeconomic investigations of the co-operatives and LLEs it is

difficult to say how effective they are. It is, however, possible to say that (1) Many of the co-

operatives are engaging in entrepreneurial enterprises. (2) There are at least 16 different kinds

of activities in which co-operatives and LLEs are involved. The returns on the investment

vary considerably, but some of the activities are proving to generate income and enhance

livelihoods in other ways (e.g. reducing labour of women through the availability of hammer

mills to grind maize, sorghum and other goods). Some co-operative members produce and

sell tree seedlings, flowers, vegetables, and fruits. There are also co-operatives that produce

and sell goods such as coffins, face creams, and crafts.

The business plans of the various co-operatives and of the LLEs vary considerably. Some are

very short without much detail. Others are lengthy documents, 20 or more pages, with

detailed costing and rates of return. It appears that the variability is due in part to the

availability of an experienced IGO, Technical Assistance Unit member or DoC representative

who has the time to work with the cooperative or LLE to develop a business plan.

In the past, there was an income generation officer/business plan advisor based in LHDA

who advised communities how to go about doing business planning. The problem was that



the advice was complex and the business plan models provided as examples were in many

cases beyond the capacity of rural community members to handle without having some

experience as accountants. In POE Report No. 56, it was recommended that LHDA should

review the current business model to ensure that only approval of lump sums would be based

on bona fide business to avoid later destitution of households. This was done, according to

LHDA, in 2010 to tighten controls, and it was approved for use by all Compensation

Officers. LHDA admits, however, that the revised business model has not stopped lump sum

recipients from using their money carelessly.

The Community Infrastructure and Development Policy (LHDA 2009) was reviewed along

with plans for its implementation. As noted in POE 51, this Policy addresses infrastructure

development in the 44 highlands, foothills, and lowlands villages hosting the Phase 1B

relocated and resettled households. In general, the Community Infrastructure and

Development Policy overall is sound. While there are debates about this issue, the POE feels

strongly that communal compensation funds should go to the affected communities and their

LLEs that are owed this compensation and their host communities and community councils

and not to government, something that has been recommended in some quarters. Instead,

work should be done with all stakeholders, including the communities, government, local

institutions, and traditional authorities, to come up with a way to handle the communal

compensation issues, including disputes, and ways to ensure that the funds are used

effectively, efficiently, and ethically.

The 1995/1996 Phase 1B Resettlement and Development Study, which formed the basis of

the subsequent resettlement and development program, had stressed that participation in the

development program should not be taken as a form of individual compensation for economic

losses sustained on account of the project. Some LHDA officials nevertheless have taken the

view that although some of the affected families seemed to be falling into poverty they would

nevertheless benefit from the development program and would ultimately be better off. If

LHDA is to meet its treaty obligations, then greater efforts must be made to ensure that

individual and communal compensation and development programs are implemented

effectively.

References Cited

Government of Lesotho and Government of South Africa (1986) Treaty on the Lesotho

Highlands Water Project Between the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho and the

Government of the Republic of South Africa. Maseru, Lesotho: Government of Lesotho and

Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa: Government of the Republic of South Africa.

Katse Field Operations Branch (2011a) Katse and Lejone LLEs Audit Action Report Derived

from Latest Audit (January, 2011). Katse, Lesotho: Katse FOB.

Katse Field Operations Branch (2011b) Report on Status of Embezzlement of LLE Funds,

LLEs Downstream of Katse Dam (February, 2011). Katse, Lesotho: Katse FOB.

Kingdom of Lesotho (1986) The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Order 1986.

Maseru, Lesotho: Government of Lesotho.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (1997) Compensation and Rehabilitation Policy

(Revised). Maseru, Lesotho: Government of Lesotho.



Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (2009) Community Infrastructure and

Development Policy. Maseru, Lesotho: Government of Lesotho.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – Technical notes of 51


Appendix 5 Technical notes

Grass species suitable for erosion control and rehabilitation

Catalepis gracilis Lesotho kweek. A rhizomatous or stoloniferous short-growing grass

tolerant of grazing and trampling in the Lesotho Highlands. Occupies niché similar to

common kweek Cynodon dactylon. Propagate with runners or sods, otherwise collect seeds.

Chloris gayana Rhodes grass. Tolerant of low rainfall. Low-growing bunch grass with

stoloniferous habit. Not grazing-tolerant. Seed at 5-10 kg per ha. Possibly suitable for

Lesotho Lowlands and Foothills.

Cynodon dactylon Kweek. Low-growing hardy rhizomatous grass. Modest forage value (at

best). Under low soil fertility is patchily established. When soil fertility is raised taller

growing grasses displace it unless the sward is kept short, when kweek is then competitive.

Seed 1-2 kg per ha, or plant runners. Performs poorly in presence of Rhodes and Smuts when

the robust species are properly fertilized and managed. Suitable for Lesotho Lowlands and

Foothills.

Eragrostis curvula Weeping love grass. Medium-sized bunch grass. Hardy and tolerant of a

wide range of conditions. Can survive lower soil fertility than Smuts finger grass, does

respond to fertilization, but forage value is low. Seed at 2-7 kg per ha. Not first choice for

rehabilitation of mining-disturbed land on Eastern Highveld where it is vulnerable to fire

when underdefoliated.

Eragrostis tef Teff. Medium-sized hardy annual bunch grass widely used as a cover or nurse

crop to protect land while slow-to-develop species establish. Seed at 10-12 kg per ha.

Paspalum notatum Bahia grass. A tufted grass with a horizontally creeping rhizome that can

form dense sods thriving where annual rainfall is 800 mm or more. If N fertilizer is applied it

is productive but it can survive low soil fertility. This is a naturalized species in southern

Africa, originating apparently from South America. Its behaviour is supposed to be that of

mid-seral grass, and is liable to be displaced by native climax grasses. Because of the dense

mats of rhizomes it can form it can be used to stabilize erosion prone areas. Suitable for

Lesotho Lowlands and Foothills. It is normally established from seed at a seeding rate of 20-

25 kg/ha.

Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu. Under conditions of high fertility is a tough, grazing-

resistant high-production rhizomatous grass offering supreme protection against raindrop

impact and overland flow. There is a seeded variety but is best established by planting

runners or sodding. It is not invasive unless introduced to eutrophic (nutrient rich) situations

such as N and P enriched streambanks.

Phragmites communis Common reed. This „grass‟ grows in damp soil and shallow water up

to 2 m deep. It has robust densely-growing rhizomes. It is suitable for stabilizing permanently

damp or wet gully floors except in the high mountain zone. Propagate by transplanting

rhizomes. Do not confuse with Spanish reed Arundo donax an alien invader with longer

thicker, often slightly curved, stems, and that can grow on dry land.



Seedbed preparation and fertilization for erosion control and rehabilitation

1. If soil is compacted, reverse compaction by ripping to at least 30 cm.

2. Disk and harrow to break up clods.

3. In soils low in organic carbon apply chicken litter, compost, manure or straw at 5-30

t/ha.

4. Incorporate organic material (mulch) into top 10 cm of soil.

5. In absence of laboratory soil fertility analysis, default fertilizer application is P at 20

kg/ha and N at 50 kg/ha, applied at time of grass seeding.

6. Do not apply mulch or inorganic fertilizer to wetlands.

7. Roll with Cambridge roller or, if small area, pat down with spade.

8. Apply grass seed, or plant the rhizomes or runners.

9. Roll again.

10. Through the summer months (October-March) when grass comes into flower slash,

remove cuttings and topdress with N at 50 kg/ha. Never N-topdress grown out grass.

Never N-todpress in winter (April-September).

Control of woody alien invader plants

1. Trees or shrubs taller than 1.5 m should be felled close to ground level, and basal stem

treatment applied (immediately after felling apply a systemic herbicide to cut stump).

2. Saplings up to 1.5 m can be sprayed with a systemic herbicide.

3. Seedlings can often be hand-pulled or also sprayed with a systemic herbicide.

4. There are numerous suitable herbicides available from agricultural suppliers,

hardware stores, garden shops (eg Chopper, Garlon).

5. Always follow the manufacturer‟s instructions on use and precautions.

6. Avoid using products that are highly toxic and require extreme precautions.

7. Instruct and supervise use.

8. Obtain Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and hold on site. An example of MSDS

for Chopper is appended below.



Business Center

South Africa &

Sub-Sahara

Safety Data Sheet Page: 1/ 5

BASF Safety data sheet according to 91/155/EEC

Date / Revised: 24.11.2004 Version: 1.3

Product: CHOPPER 693 09 H

(30145550/SDS_CPA_EU/EN)

Date of print 25.11.2004

1. Substance/preparation and company identification

CHOPPER

Company: BASF Aktiengesellschaft

Unternehmensbereich Pflanzenschutz

67056 Ludwigshafen, Deutschland Telephone: +49-621-60-79321/ 79145

Telefax number: +49-621-60-79519

E-mail address: [email protected]

Emergency information:

Fire brigade BASF Ludwigshafen Telephone: +49-621-60-43333

Telefax number: +49-621-60-92664

2. Composition/information on ingredients Chemical nature crop protection product, herbicide, water-soluble concentrate (SL)

Preparation based on: IMAZAPYR ISOPROPYLAMIN

Hazardous ingredients

imazapyr Content (W/W): 9.4 %

CAS Number: 81334-34-1

Hazard symbol(s): Xi, N R-phrase(s): 41, 50/53

Nonylphenol ethoxylate Content (W/W): 8.5 %

CAS Number: 68412-54-4

Hazard symbol(s): Xn, N R-phrase(s): 22, 41, 51/53

The wording of the hazard symbols and R-phrases is specified in chapter 16 if dangerous ingredients are mentioned.

3. Hazard identification Irritating to eyes.

Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.

4. First-aid measures

General advice: Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Remove contaminated clothing.

if difficulties occur: Obtain medical attention.

Show container, label and/or safety data sheet to physician.

If inhaled: Keep patient calm, remove to fresh air, seek medical attention.

On skin contact: After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of water and soap.

If irritation develops, seek medical attention.

In case of Emergency 082 900 8440 /

0800172743. BASF SA – 011 203 2400



On contact with eyes: Immediately wash affected eyes for at least 15 minutes under running water with eyelids held open, consult an

eye specialist.

On ingestion: Rinse mouth immediately and then drink plenty of water, seek medical attention.

Do not induce vomiting unless told to by a poison control center or doctor. Never induce vomiting or give anything by mouth if the victim is unconscious or having convulsions.

Page: 2 / 5

BASF Safety data sheet according to 91/155/EEC Date / Revised: 24.11.2004 Version: 1.3




Note to physician:

Treatment: Treat according to symptoms (decontamination, vital functions), no known specific antidote.

5. Fire-fighting measures Suitable extinguishing media: water spray, water fog, carbon dioxide, foam, dry extinguishing media

Specific hazards: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides The substances/groups of substances mentioned can be released in case of fire.

Special protective equipment: Wear self-contained breathing apparatus and chemical-protective clothing.

Further information:

In case of fire and/or explosion do not breathe fumes. Keep containers cool by spraying with water if exposed to fire.

Collect contaminated extinguishing water separately, do not allow to reach sewage or effluent systems.

Dispose of fire debris and contaminated extinguishing water in accordance with official regulations.

6. Accidental release measures

Personal precautions: Use personal protective clothing.

Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing. Remove contaminated clothes, undergarments and shoes immediately.

Environmental precautions: Do not discharge into the subsoil/soil. Do not discharge into drains/surface waters/groundwater.

Methods for cleaning up or taking up: For small amounts: Pick up with suitable absorbent material (e.g. sand, sawdust, general-purpose binder,

kieselguhr).

For large amounts: Dike spillage. Pump off product.

Collect waste in suitable containers, which can be labeled and sealed.

Clean contaminated floors and objects thoroughly with water and detergents, observing environmental regulations. Incinerate or take to a special waste disposal site in accordance with local authority regulations.

7. Handling and storage

Handling No special measures necessary if stored and handled correctly.

Protection against fire and explosion: No special precautions necessary. The substance/product is non-combustible.

Product is not explosive.

Storage

Segregate from foods and animal feeds.

Segregate from oxidants.

Further information on storage conditions: Keep away from heat.

Protect from direct sunlight.

Storage stability:

Storage duration: 24 Months Protect from temperatures above: 40 °C

Changes in the properties of the product may occur if substance/product is stored above indicated temperature for extended periods of time.



8. Exposure controls and personal protection

Personal protective equipment

Respiratory protection: Respiratory protection not required.

Hand protection: Suitable chemical resistant safety gloves (EN 374) also with prolonged, direct contact

(Recommended: Protective index 6, corresponding > 480 minutes of permeation time according to EN

374): E.g. nitrile rubber (0.4 mm), chloroprene rubber (0.5 mm), polyvinylchloride (0.7 mm) and other

Eye protection: Tightly fitting safety goggles (splash goggles) (EN 166)

Body protection: Body protection must be chosen depending on activity and possible exposure, e.g. apron, protecting boots,

chemical- protection suit (according to DIN-EN 465).

Page: 3 / 5


Date / Revised: 24.11.2004 Version: 1.3




General safety and hygiene measures: The statements on personal protective equipment in the instructions for use apply when handling crop-protection agents in final-

consumer packing. Avoid contact with the skin, eyes and clothing.

Wearing of closed work clothing is recommended. Take off immediately all contaminated clothing.

Store work clothing separately.

Keep away from food, drink and animal feeding stuffs. No eating, drinking, smoking or tobacco use at the place of work.

Hands and/or face should be washed before breaks and at the end of the shift.

9. Physical and chemical properties

Form: liquid

Colour: dark red

Density: approx. 1.06 g/cm3 (20 °C)

Solubility in water: soluble

10. Stability and reactivity

Thermal decomposition: No decomposition if stored and handled as prescribed/indicated.

Substances to avoid: oxidizing agent

Hazardous reactions: No hazardous reactions if stored and handled as prescribed/indicated.

Hazardous decomposition products: No hazardous decomposition products if stored and handled as prescribed/indicated.

11. Toxicological information LD50/oral/rat: > 5,000 mg/kg

Information on: imazapyr LC50/by inhalation/rat: > 1.3 mg/l / 4 h

---------------------------------- LD50/dermal/rat: > 2,000 mg/kg

Primary skin irritation/rabbit: non-irritant

Primary irritations of the mucous membrane/rabbit: Severely irritating. Sensitization/guinea pig: Skin sensitizing effects were not observed in animal studies.

Additional information: The product has not been tested. The statement has been derived from products of a similar structure and composition.

Misuse can be harmful to health.

12. Ecological information Ecotoxicity

Information on: imazapyr



Toxicity to fish: Oncorhynchus mykiss/LC50 (96 h): > 100 mg/l ----------------------------------

Information on: imazapyr Aquatic invertebrates: Daphnia magna/EC50 (48 h): > 100 mg/l ----------------------------------

Information on: imazapyr Aquatic plants: Selenastrum capricornutum/EC50: 71 mg/l Anabaena flos-aquae/EC50: 11.7 mg/l Lemna gibba/EC50: 0.024 mg/l

----------------------------------

Persistence and degradability Elimination information

Evaluation: Not readily biodegradable (by OECD criteria).

Additional information Other ecotoxicological advice: The ecological data given are those of the active ingredient.

Do not discharge product into the environment without control.

13. Disposal considerations

Must be dumped or incinerated in accordance with local regulations.

Contaminated packaging:

Contaminated packaging should be emptied as far as possible and disposed of in the same manner as the substance/product.

Page: 4/ 5

BASF Safety data sheet according to 91/155/EEC Date / Revised: 24.11.2004 Version: 1.3




14. Transport information Land transport

ADR : Class 9

Packaging group III

UN-number 3082 Designation of goods ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.O.S.

(Contains: IMAZAPYR 9%, NONYLPHENOLETHOXYLATE 9%)

RID : Class 9

Packaging group III



Inland waterway transport

ADNR : Class 9

Packaging group III



Sea transport IMDG/GGVSee : Class 9

Packaging group III

UN-number 3082 Marine pollutant YES

Exact technical name ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.O.S.

(contains IMAZAPYR 9%, NONYLPHENOLETHOXYLATE 9%)

Air transport ICAO/IATA : Class 9

Packaging group III

UN-number 3082 Exact technical name ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, LIQUID, N.O.S.

(contains IMAZAPYR 9%, NONYLPHENOLETHOXYLATE 9%)

15. Regulatory information Regulations of the European union (Labelling) / National legislation/Regulations

EEC Directives: Hazard symbol(s)



Xi Irritant.

N Dangerous for the environment.

R-phrase(s)

R36 Irritating to eyes. R51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.

S-phrase(s) S2 Keep out of the reach of children.

S13 Keep away from food, drink and animal feeding stuffs.

S20/21 When using do not eat, drink or smoke. S26 In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice.

S35 This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way.

S46 If swallowed, seek medical advice immediately and show this container or label. S57 Use appropriate container to avoid environmental contamination.

Hazard determinant component(s) for labelling: IMAZAPYR

Other regulations For the user of this plant-protective product applies: 'To avoid risks to man and the environment, comply with the instructions for

use.' (Directive 1999/45/EC, Article 10, No. 1.2)

16. Other information

Full text of hazard symbols and R-phrases if mentioned as hazardous components in chapter 2:

Xi Irritant.

N Dangerous for the environment.

Xn Harmful. 41 Risk of serious damage to eyes.

Page: 5 / 5


Date / Revised: 24.11.2004 Version: 1.3 Product: CHOPPER

693 09 H



50/53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. 22 Harmful if swallowed.

51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.

Vertical lines in the left hand margin indicate an amendment from the previous version. The information contained herein is based on the present state of our knowledge and does not therefore guarantee certain properties.

Recipients of our product must take responsibility for observing existing laws and regulations.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – Decision rules of 51


Appendix 6a The decision rules

The following is extracted from PoE Report 41 of April 2005 and represents an agreement

between LHDA, The World Bank, the IFR Consultant and PoE on how 2nd

tranche payment

of compensation to downstream communities is to be decided.

Decision rules regarding 2

nd tranche of compensation for proximal reaches

(a) assume that changes in resource amount are flow-related unless there is contrary evidence

(b) if woody vegetation resources increase or decline <10% then no 2nd

tranche compensation

payable

(c) if woody vegetation resources decline 10<25% then compensation is payable for wood

losses as per Metsi reports and IFR Procedures

(d) if woody vegetation resources decline by >25% then determine in a cost-effective but

defensible manner a revised compensation amount

(e) apply the above decision rules on woody vegetation to fish

(f) if compensation is due on wood resources and/or fish then include compensation for other

resources (ie forage, medicinal plants and wild vegetables) at the appropriate level (at level

under (d) above if wood or fish resources declined by >25%, otherwise at level under (c)

above)

Approach distal reaches as follows

(g) Accept that even though change in resources might be detected by monitoring, it probably

will not be possible to establish on balance of evidence that the change is flow-related &

caused by LHWP

(h) Monitor woody vegetation resources to determine change to fall into one or other of

following classes

Class A – Increase or decline <10%

Class B – Decrease 10<25%

Class C – Decrease >25%

(i) If change falls in Class A then no compensation is warranted

(j) If change falls in Class B then intervention (viz community compensation or development)

is warranted at the level indicated in Metsi reports

(k) If change falls in Class C then enhanced intervention (viz community compensation or

development) is warranted at a higher level than indicated in Metsi reports – a level that

must be determined on the basis of the percentage decline in resources

(l) If (j) or (k) arise the intervention is a decision that probably cannot be substantiated on

„proven‟ LHWP flow-related (see (g) above) but can and should be defended on the

developmental & economic principle that government decisions should always be biased

towards the interests of the poor (eg downstream communities)

(m) Proceed with (l) unless there is irrefutable evidence that resource loss was not LHWP flow-

related

(n) The above approach to wood resources must be applied to fish resources as well

(o) The most severe loss determined for wood and fish resources should be deemed to apply to

the other resources (ie forage, medicinal plants and wild vegetables) and the intervention or

enhanced intervention decided and defended as described above under (j), (k) and (l)

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – IFR monitoring of 51


Appendix 6b ToR framework for short-term IFR monitoring

1. The purpose of the assignment is to make an independent assessment of IFR

monitoring evidence against the decision rules regarding the payment, or withholding

of payment, of compensation to riparian communities downstream of LHWP Phase 1a

structures.

2. As set out in the decision rules, the issues of concern are riparian vegetation and fish

only.

3. Divide the assessment into proximal reaches (IFR reaches 1,2 & 3) and distal reaches

(IFR reaches 4, 5 & 6).

4. The historical evidence to be used must include IFR monitoring reports, PoE reports

and photographs, but other evidence can be used as may be relevant.

5. Collect further evidence as follows.

Woody vegetation

6. Source pre-construction and post-construction photographs, air photos and/or satellite

images of the relevant reaches on the Matsoku, Malibamatso and Senqunyane Rivers,

as well as the Senqu upstream of the its confluence with the Malibamatso. The Senqu

is included as a control – it is still pre-construction.

7. Make visual assessment of the amount of riparian woody vegetation pre- versus post-

construction. Quantify/semi-quantify the visual assessment with crude methods such

as placing grid over riparian zone and counting squares with and without visible

woody vegetation, or even just length of river bank without or without apparent

woody vegetation.

8. Supplement the desk-top visual assessment with a simple field assessment along the

following lines.

Locate ~15 random sample sites on each IFR Reach. Use Google Earth – measure

distance along the Reach (ie develop chainage), and use random number generator to

identify random starting points for the sampling sites. Record the GPS coordinates for

each starting point.

Go to starting point. Measure 5 m from water‟s edge under base flow conditions.

Adopt the point-centre-quarter method (PCQ).

In each quarter identify the species of woody plant within 5 m and taller than breast

height. Record presence of a woody plant within 5 m as 1, and absence as 0.

Walk 20 m, parallel to and 5 m from water‟s edge, and repeat the PCQ recording.

Observe 8 PCQ points for one sample site (ie 4x8 = 32 observations per sample site).

Assess one Reach as a pilot trial. Calculate mean and variance and assess the

sensitivity (power) of the sampling technique. Adjust the sampling technique as might

be appropriate (eg apply stratified random sampling design if data are very variable,

or increase sample numbers, or increase PCQ points per sample). The ideal is to have

the technique capable of demonstrating a 10% change in woody vegetation.



Apply the technique to all IFR Reaches. The technique should require one observer to

perform the PCQ, and a driver to deliver the observer at the beginning of the day, and

fetch her/him at the end of the day. If the team is bigger the job can be done faster.

9. Analyse, interpret and write up results. Relate the visual appearances obtained in the

desk-study with the data obtained in the field exercise.

Fish

10. Adopt the fish sampling method applied in current IFR monitoring. As a pilot trial,

take 3 replicate samples in one Reach. (An important property of replicate samples is

that they are independent. Sampling the same site repeatedly over a period of days or

weeks might not meet the criterion of independence – destructive sampling, fish

become sensitized and take evasive action, etc. Simple random sampling within a

Reach might give very variable results, and this variability might be reduced by

applying stratified random sampling – viz sample riffle sections only.)

11. Using the data from the pilot trial, determine the level of sampling required to

demonstrate a 10% in the fish population. Focus on a simple measure of fish

abundance, such as catch per unit effort, or catch per fixed sampling effort. Consider

the merits of measuring „catch‟ in fish numbers or biomass. Review how realistic it is

to apply such sampling. Decide on the most realistic intensity of sampling.

12. Apply the developing fish sampling technique to all Reaches.

13. Analyse, interpret and write up the results.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – Strategic plan of 51


Appendix 9 LHDA Strategic Plan

A Strategic Plan is supposed to identify factors that have contributed to the observed

successes or failures and use this information to determine a path of least resistance for the

betterment of an organization to enable it to carry out its mission and achieve its vision in the

long term. The processes that are often undertaken include a through environmental analysis

by operatives at all levels and the synthesis of this information into a strength, limitations,

opportunities and threats analysis upon which decisions as to what should be done is

undertaken.

In order to be objective, a strategic plan requires that analysis is carried out at all levels

including management systems and culture of the organization. The management systems and

culture of the organization are key factors in determining how and how fast an organization

can respond to changes in the operational environment as well as to emerging issues.

It is important that LHDA undertakes this exercise to identify management policies and

practices hindering the ability of the organization to translate its strategic imperatives into

actions at operational and management levels.

PoE suggests that this process needs to be undertaken in a joint exercise where LHWC,

LHDA Board and LHDA participate as equal participants each able to analyse its role in the

implementation of the strategic plans and at the same time appreciating the roles and

responsibilities of the other institution. This is possible if an experienced facilitator is

engaged to ensure that an objective analysis of the internal environment is carried out without

fear of recriminations from higher authorities that would be subjected to this scrutiny.



Appendix 10 Senqunyane Access Investigation Trip

KINGDOM OF LESOTHO LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT SENQUNYANE ACCESS INVESTIGATION TRIP – MALOTI MINNOW

prepared by L. MATETE, JULY 2007

BACKGROUND

Following the helicopter trip on the 2nd

May 2007, it was observed that access to the two

identified areas (Ha Ts‟oeute & Nteso) for the proposed construction of fish barriers was a

problem. The intension to fly to the two proposed sites was for the team to be familiar

themselves with the terrain and to closely look at the suitability of constructing the two types

of barriers previously considered under.

DESCRIPTION OF THE IDENTIFIED SITES:

Ha Ts’oeute

This site is situated just upstream of Mohale Dam tail pond in the Senqunyane River valley.

At Mohale Reservoir full supply level, the tail water extends to the site. Careful consideration

should be taken if this site is considered, as the pool, if formed, will provide a suitable resting

habitat for predatory fish species that will attempt to overcome the barrier.

The observation made during 2

nd May 2007 trip was that the Ts‟oeute barrier, when constructed

would have a cross-section of 50m, 5m long and about 14m, 2m high. It is envisaged that the most

appropriate design for the weir would be a rock fill type structure, a permeable structure that allow

constant seep-through of water. The structure would need to have a spillway at the central point. This

is intended to channel water to the central point during floods, thus increase velocity so as to limit the

fish to leap over the structures.

Ha Nteso

This site is situated on northwest side of Ha Nteso village, which is further upstream of the Ha

Ts‟oeute site along the Senqunyane River valley. The choice of this site was used as a base to test a

natural approach to establishing an artificial barrier that will imitate the natural waterfall in ecological

and geological longevity as practicably possible. The approach to this is to artificially induce a cut-off

meander to simulate examples observed elsewhere.



When Nteso barrier is constructed it will result in a drop in height over the length of the cut-off

section forming the waterfall, therefore forming a natural barrier. Nteso waterfall is expected to form

a vertical drop of about 12 to 14 metres high at the outlet and the tunnel cut-off of about 250m to

300m length.

ACCESS ROUTE INSPECTION

The possible access route to the proposed barriers construction sites at Ha Ts‟oeute and Ha

Nteso is through the village of Ha Sekolopata. Ha Sekolopata is on the left bank of the

Senqunyane River Valley and is the last village serviced by feeder roads network around the

Mohale Dam catchment.

PHOTO: 1 Sekolopata Village – Beginning of Formation Access Route

Further going upstream along the Senqunyane River valley towards the proposed Ts‟oeute

barrier site is the formation access route, which was used as the only access during

implementation of WATSON Project. The route was only accessible by 4x4 vehicles for

transportation of building materials and could not be used by heavy vehicles or plant.

During our inspection of the route it was clear that the existing road was last used during the

construction of water and sanitation facilities. Due to very steep terrain from Ha Sekolopata

to the bottom Valley of Senqunyane River, most of the fill material has been washed down

the slopes leaving exposed hard basalt rock. Most of the areas with exposed basalt rock are

on the ridges and that would make driving over them impossible, otherwise the areas will be

very expensive to work on. It was observed that most of the ridges are followed by very steep

slopes of about 1:1 (45o angle) that are almost impossible to manoeuvre with the 4x4

vehicles.

PHOTO 2: Steep Slopes over Ridges without Top Soil



Walking down from the village to the bottom of the valley there are a lot of exposed basalt

ridges that will require blasting to achieve an acceptable road formation. The other areas with

steep slopes, the formation line will have to be rerouted to allow heavy vehicles to make up

the steep slopes.

A few flat areas of the route were observed to have a lot of very clayish material, which

seemed very soft and slippery when wet, especially towards the bottom of the valley.

PHOTO : 3 Areas with Clayish and Soft Top Soil Cover

There were no tests carried out on these flat areas to check the depth of the top soil cover but

the basalt outcrops were spotted nearby within the 10m range. During the formation level

preparation at these flat areas, efforts will have to be made to ensure stability especially for

heavy vehicles drive-over.

The Senqunyane River Valley bottom is the only area along the route to the proposed

Ts‟oeute site that have easy access and that will require less effort in preparing the road

formation. Even though this area is easy to prepare the road formation level, it might require

care when driving over, especially with heavy plant or loaded trucks, as might have soft

underground spots due to alluvium deposits.

PHOTO 4: Few Flat Areas at the Valley Bottom



Walking upstream towards Ha Ts'oeute barrier site for about 1.0km, there are a lot of

alluvium deposits and this could be due the shallow riverbed slope and tail water stand during

the reservoir full supply level. This alluvium deposit will be a big challenge if the barrier is to

be constructed during high floods.

Ha Nteso barrier site is about 2km away from Ha Ts‟oeute barrier site and accessibility by

vehicle is impossible. The terrain is very steep and composed of mainly hard basalt rock.

From Ha Ts‟oeute to Ha Nteso, there is no road formation and a new road for about 2km

would require to be developed using intensive drilling and blasting of hard basalt rock.

PHOTO 5: Alluvium Deposit along Senqunyane River Valley

CONCLUSIONS

The 0.4km of the access route connecting the Feeder Road dead-end and Ha

Sekolopata Village will have to be rerouted due to very steep slopes, therefore

require use of heavy plant at some areas for road formation cut and fill.

Within the village of Ha Sekolopata, road formation (about 0.2km) can be

done through engagement of labour force since the ground is soft.

After the first ridge from the village, the existing route follows a very steep

decline for about 4km to the bottom of the valley and it will have to be

rerouted to cut the slopes. Most of the area will require blasting to cut off the

road formation.

The existing route at the valley bottom for about 2km follows the riverbed

contour all the way to the Ts'oeute barrier site and labour force can be engaged

for construction of road formation.



Quarry sites for rock fill materials to be used for barrier construction will have

to be investigated before access to the quarries is determined.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the upgrading of the existing route to the Fish Barrier sites at Ha

Ts'oeute and Ha Nteso be evaluated since its construction cost could be very high. It is also

recommended that labour force should be utilised as much as possible to cut down the cost

and heavy plant be used only on areas difficult to use labour force.

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – KLM WATSAN of 51


Appendix 11 KLM WATSAN

The suggested use of new toilet technology is based on the need to reduce construction costs

in terms of time by using prefabricated materials that are durable and long lasting. The

construction of the Hydroloo takes about two to three hours and the basic unit costs less than

R3 500 and the enclosure not more than R3 500 and can be completed in less than a day.

THE HYBRID TOILET SYSTEM INSTALLATION

The System is Filled only once at

installation with Water from any source

prior to backfilling of the tank pit

THE HYBRID TOILET SYSTEM INSTALLATION

Installation is Easily

Accomplished by Manual

Labour

Stand alone unit with ventilation pipe

Can be installed anywhere

including next to an already

existing dwelling as it has no

smell and does not attract flies

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – Environmental & Social Specialists of 51


Appendix 12 ToRs for environmental and social specialists

are as follows.

Draw up ToRs and obtain approval from [insert]

Review and advise on ToRs

Assist

Assist

Biophysical resources

Socio-economics (livelihoods)

Public health

Register of individual and communal assets

Assist

Probably too restrictive. Try 10 yrs

PoE Report 58 – March 2011 – Appendix – Environmental & Social Specialists of 51


Assist

Participate

Liaise

Participate

Monitor

Assist

Establish

No! All facets of Phase 2 have environmental/social consequences

similar to

similar to

LHWP

Probably too

restrictive. Try 10 yrs

three

Lesotho Highlands Water Project - LHWP | PORTAL Report 58 - rev0.pdf · Lesotho Highlands Water...

Documents

Transcript of Lesotho Highlands Water Project - LHWP | PORTAL Report 58 - rev0.pdf · Lesotho Highlands Water...