ma&d phases 1 and 2

TCP/ZAM/3601 TRAINING REPORT

MA&D Phases 1 and 2

By…Makweti Sishekanu, National Consultant – MA&D

Submitted to…Jeremy Mbairamadji, PhD

Sioma 25-29th September 2017

INTRODUCTION

The MA&D training contributes to the implementation of the TCP/ZAM/3601 entitled,

Sustainable Forest and Woodland Management for Food and Nutrition Security, in the Western

Province of Zambia. The project intends to increase and enhance food and nutritional security

through production, utilization and sale of forest products among selected rural communities in

Sesheke and Sioma Districts. The MA&D training feeds directly into the overarching objective of

this project; to improve food and nutrition security of rural communities through

commercialization of forest products for increased incomes and enhanced access nutritious foods

for effective and sustainable forest management. In particular, it is expected that the training will

lead to achievement of the following specific objectives:

i. To increase household incomes through the harvesting, processing and commercialization

of forest products;

ii. To enhance food and nutrition security at household and community levels by sharing

knowledge and promoting the widespread consumption of nutritious forest foods.

This report is structured to outline the learning activities, processes, achievements, challenges and

lesson learned from each of the five training days. The report also attempts to clarify certain

unplanned developments that emerged each day, how the challenges were addressed and

suggestions for improvements in the subsequent phases of the training, especially phase 3. Each

of the five training days is evaluated from two fronts; (i) the participants’ overall impression about

the logistical arrangements and, (ii) the participants’ overall impressions about the facilitation of

the training. To provide a glimpse into the realities of the training experiences, the report employs

the use of pictures to depict critical moments of the training each day.

Methodology and Training approach

The training is conducted in Lozi, the local language of the area and all training materials are

translated for that purpose. The training adopts different pedagogical tools as indicated in the

program in Annex 1. A Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) method was employed taking care of

local context, participants’ moods, group dynamics, literacy and their levels of conceptualization.

Different facilitative approaches starting with story-telling through guided discussions, brain

storming and quizzes, group work and cross examinations, field work, role play were adopted and

a pictorial power point presentation to close the training on Day 5. These pedagogical tools have

proven effective evinced from the daily evaluation results by the participants themselves at the end

of each day.

Design of the Training program

The training targets a total of 60 participants constituting of 15 facilitators; one from Wildlife and

National Parks; one from Community Development; two from forests Department, and 11

community facilitators from among the community forest producers. In this training, facilitators

and producers are trained together while the 15 facilitators assist the consultant by taking the

leading roles in group work sessions and field surveys. The facilitators will also be crucial in

preparing for the second cycle of the training.

The remoteness of the three community areas had a significant bearing on nearly all the challenges

faced during the training. Four drivers, one from FAO and 3 from Forests Department including

the project vehicle, were starting off as early as 04; 00 AM to drive utmost 30km across sandy

terrains to pick up the community producers from the three areas. After which, one driver was

required to drive 20 kilometers to pick up the consultant from his lodging place. To complicate

this challenge, Sioma District has no filling station, meaning, drivers needed to drive more than

100km to the nearest filling station in Senanga District. As such, the trainings could not be

executed as planned according to the training program in Annex 1, as the participants needed time

to settle down for breakfast as their first activity having been required to wake up very early in the

morning each day.

Therefore, training sessions were only starting after 09:00 hours, and squeezing the lessons of each

day between 09; 30 and at least 16: 00 hours inevitably demanded changes in the timetable as the

participants had to be driven back to their distant communities before dusk. These changes also

meant a compromise in the delivery of the training. Clearly, transport stands out as key to the

success or failure of this program. Therefore, two suggestions are hereby put forward for

improvements in the subsequent phase:

i. Accommodate all the participants in the nearest location right in Sioma Boma. The

advantage of this option is a reduction in driving time for the drivers and conservation of

fuel in the cars, given the fact that Sioma District has no filling station. It will also guarantee

adequate time to commence and end trainings sessions every morning and evening,

respectively. There may not be need for four vehicles running around long distances every

morning and evening to ferry the participants under this option. The disadvantage of this

option however, is the lack of accommodation in Sioma. This challenge would mean that

participants arrange their own accommodation within Sioma Boma and paid an allowance.

With the experience from this phase of training sessions, there is no guarantee that the

villagers will use that money for such a purpose but would rather walk long distances from

their villages to the training center. Secondly, there will definitely be a need to adjust the

budgets upwards to cover accommodation of 60 participants for five days.

ii. Increase the number of vehicles from four to five so no driver has to make more than one

trip to ferry participants from their villages. Prepare drums of fuel to purchase fuel in bulk

from Senanga and store it for refueling right in Sioma. This option does not change the

distance which each drive has to drive to ferry the participants but it will require each drive

to make only one trip in the morning and evening. The participants will still need to be

given time to have breakfast in the morning and driven back on time at least by 16; 00

hours. Compromises in the training will still be inevitable in order to accommodate this

reality. The option will equally require an upward adjustment to the budgets especially for

fuel.

DAY 1, MONDAY 25th SEPTEMBER 2017

Introduction of all participants: A total of 61 participants (38 males and 23 females) registered on

Day 1. Sioma District Commissioner, Mr. Maurice Litula officially opened the training

recognizing the esteemed presence of the Barotse Royal Establishment (BRE) Induna seated as

one of the participants. The training opened with a Brain-teasing story in Annex 2, meant to create

critical thinking around what enterprise should be, what it should NOT be and community

cooperation around exploitation of local resources. From the story, key lessons are hidden in the

concept of community-based enterprises.

Introduction to MA&D was opened with Phase 1 Lesson 1 of Annex 3. The supporting training

materials for the lesson are designed to ask questions that lead participants in the way of identifying

what the forest resources are, and where they are found. Out of this session, a total of nine

prominent product interest groups were identified, namely - (i) Honey (ii) Seto (devil’s claw) (iii)

Mungongo (Schinziophyton rautanenii) (iv) Timber (v) Wild fruits (vi) Grass (vii) Wildlife (viii)

Crafts and, (ix) Mbowa (Mushroom). The products are all seemingly promising measured against

the community’s challenges which came out as follows:

Lack of Leadership Training, 17%

Lack of Electricity, 8%

Transport problems, 8%

Unclear regulations, 17%Lack of

equipment/technology, 8%

Poor market, 38%

Poor community cooperation, 8%

ENTERPRISE CHALLENGES FROM DAY 1

Reference to poor market as a challenge in this case means lack of buyers; the producers have to

travel very long distances to a place where they can sell, often compounded by lack of transport.

Before lunch, participants were challenged into a brain storming exercise that stimulated their

thinking around why and how they would engage in an enterprise; what needs do they recognize

as critical for such engagements aided by material in Annex 4? This was done through role play

of selected participants after which everybody broke into groups formed around the five areas of

sustainable enterprise development for which the groups cross examined each other’s ‘reasoning

using the five criteria of enterprise development set out in Annex 5.

Using these five areas as criteria, participants were guided into assessing opportunities, risks and

challenges within their market setup. In their groups formed around the five areas of sustainable

enterprise development, participants went through a screening process of selecting products which

seemed promising from their perspectives. It was easier and practical to form five groups around

the five areas of sustainable enterprise development than to form more than ten groups around the

different products interests. Essentially, it must be justified that forming a group around economy

and finance, for instance, did not divorce the group from examining their products-interests around

the other four areas of sustainable enterprise development. The group formation around one of the

five criteria of sustainable enterprise development only helped each group to be specific about

what they needed to focus on in scrutinizing the other groups’ product interests. This approach

was successful in ensuring that group discussions were more focused rather haphazard in a large

group of 60 people.

Group ONE (The Natural Resource Group)

The group argued in justification of their products, that they were available, plenty, market was

perceived to be good and they had multiple uses for their selected products. These products were

– (i) Muwawa (Strychnos pungens) (ii) muhuluhulu (Strychnos cocculoides) (iii) Muzauli

(Gilbourtia coleosperma) (iv) Mumbole (Vangueriopsis lanciflora) (v) Seeto (Devil’s claw) (vi)

Malasha (Charcoal) (vi) Mumaka, (vii) Munola (viii) Namulomo (Ficus verruculosa) (ix)

Mungongo (Schinziophyton rauteneii) (x) Munzinzila, and (xi) Linosi (honey). After screening all

these products using the five areas of sustainable enterprise, Group ONE was only left with three

products – Timber, Seeto and Charcoal. The other four groups, i.e., law/regulations group,

sociocultural group, economy/finance group and the technology groups cross examined Group

ONE on their three products prompting them to think more in terms of the other four areas of

sustainable enterprise development. It was ultimately observed that Economy and Finance were

the major factors influencing the screening.

Group TWO (The sociocultural group)

The group worked hard to scrutinize every promising product enterprise against the taboos, culture

and norms of the area. The

group is equally cross

examined by other groups

around the potential

influences which other four

areas of sustainable

enterprise could have on

their selected products.

Group TWO selected five

promising products as

follows - (i) Timber, (ii)

Seeto, (iii) Thatching grass,

(iv) Mungongo and (v)

honey. After the screening

process, the group only

remains with two – Timber

and Seeto. Notwithstanding

the final selection, the group

failed to satisfy the questions

from the Group THREE below, technologies and harvesting techniques where timber harvesting

was concerned.

Group THREE (The technology/product development and research group)

The group is subjected to the same process of cross examination by other groups. Initially, group

three has five promising products, i.e., (i) Timber (ii) Thatching grass (iii) Seeto, and (iv) Honey.

After thorough screening through the five areas of sustainable enterprise development, the group

remains with Timber only. The Natural resource and the Economy and Finance criteria of

sustainable enterprise development played a major role in this elimination process.

Group FOUR (The law and regulations group)

The group highlighted regulatory lacunas as the key challenge in the area for enterprise

development of products like Seeto (Devil’s claw). The group identified five promising products

as – (i) Mungongo (ii) Seeto (iii) honey (iv) thatching grass and (v) Muhuluhulu. Using the five

areas of sustainable enterprise development, the group narrowed down their products to one –

Mungongo, which they had to justify to the other four groups who questioned the product’s

sustainability against technology, sociocultural issues, natural resource base and it economic and

financial viability. What was interesting in the group’s analysis was the role of legal regulation in

the elimination of Seeto (Devil’s claw) from their list of promising products. This is against the

fact the Devil’s claw is the most economically lucrative product in the area – the green gold of the

forests.

Group FIVE (The economy and finance group)

Group five raised only one

question for everything

presented in the training – are

these products making

economic sense? The group

selected five promising

products; (i) Timber (ii)

Charcoal (iii) honey (iv)

Seeto, and (v) Thatching

grass. However, the group

concluded in their final

analysis using the five areas of

sustainable enterprise

development that only Reeds

and Charcoal made

economic sense. Through

further cross examination by

the other four groups, Reeds

were eliminated for being a

river/marshland resource

rather than a forest product. Eventually, the group remained with only one product to showcase –

Charcoal.

Key lesson of the day

Not all products, regardless of how promising they may seem at face value, are sustainably fit for

enterprise development in the context of MA&D.

Training had to cease before 16; 00 hours because the participants had a long tedious journey back

to their villages.

Daily Evaluations

The consultant sat with the project team to review participant’s impressions about the training at

the end of the day. What were the participants’ overall impression about the logistical

arrangements of the day?

A. Satisfaction – representing all the things (too numerous to mention) which participants

expressed as good and/or recommendable

B. Dissatisfaction – representing all the things which participants expressed as bad, not

recommendable, the things for which they sort improvements. This included sentiments

such as – inadequate food, inadequate water, water was too warm, transport delayed to pick

the participants, participants needed to be paid allowances (which was the most prominent

complaint), participants needed T-shirts and participants complained about keeping time.

C. Demands to be paid an allowance – notably prominent among the dissatisfactory issues

as it represented the major complaint from the participants

D. No comments – represents those who had no comment to write, notwithstanding nor taking

for granted the hidden meanings of this silence

What were the participants’ overall impression about the logistical arrangements of the training?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Demand to be paidallowances

No comments

Evaluation of Day 1

Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

What were the participant’s overall impressions of the consultant’s facilitation of the day: Very

Poor; Poor; bad; Not bad; Fair; Good; Very Good, OR Excellent?

Attendance

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Very Poor Poor Bad Not bad Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Evaluation of the consultant

Column1 Series 2 Series 3

Total61

Males38

Females23

DAY 1

Total Males Females

DAY 2, TUESDAY 26th SEPTEMBER 2017

Recap of the five areas of sustainable enterprise development

Having demonstrated understanding on the analytical use of the five areas of sustainable enterprise

development, participants were guided to understand the market for their selected products. By the

second day, it was then clear that the subsequent sessions were to be based on four selected

products – Timber, Charcoal, Seeto and Mungongo; all having passed through the screening test

of the five areas of sustainable enterprise development.

Specific objective of the day; at the end of the session, participants were to be able to demonstrate

an understanding of the term ‘market’ and the market system within which the different products

were to be marketed and not just sold off.

With the aid of the teaching material in Annex 6, particular emphasis was laid on understanding

the value chain movements of each product from its production (where it is converted from a

resource) through to consumption. A number of challenges were discussed coming from the

analysis of product movements around different value chains: (i) poor market – having no or very

few buyers who could buy the products within Sioma Boma (ii) lack of processing equipment –

the producers had no choice but to give away the products in raw form without processing (iii)

transport problems – are varied in nature. There are long distances involved to move products from

one are to another coupled by the mode of transport (use of oxen) which was proving unreliable

over such long distances (iv) lack of electricity – as much of Sioma is not electrified (v) lack of

trainings – the communities have had different trainings offered by different NGOs in different

areas of community development but no training had ever been offered around enterprise

development (vi) poor community cooperation – communities felt they were being swindled by

occasional middlemen because the producers were formally organized around forest management.

Each individual worked in isolation of the other to produce by themselves and for themselves. This

challenge pointed to the moral of the story in Annex 2, and (vii) unclear regulations – was a

common challenge for products like the Devil’s claw. The problem seems to have persisted ever

since the government suspended the Statutory Instrument (SI) to regulate the production and

conveyance of the same product. The suspension of the SI has created a vacuum of regulatory

authority where it is no longer clear who was in charge of the product among three institutions;

the Forest Department, Wildlife authority and the Local council?

At the end of the day, each participant was given a brainstorming exercise (as homework) to think

about how the selected products from the screening process moved or would move around the

value chains into the market system. This exercise served to introduce analysis of the market for

each of the four products aided by the material in Annexes 7 and 8.

Because market analysis is only complete with field surveys, the last session of the day was

reserved for facilitators in preparation for field visits the following day. It was logistically

impossible to involve all the 61 participants in the field survey using four station wagon vehicles

across vast distances. This part of the training was designed as such from inception, to avert the

challenge of teaching a large number of 60 people. The primary purpose of the facilitator’s session

was to prepare for data collection in a guided manner that seeks to capture the relevant information

around the five areas of sustainable enterprise development. Training material in Annex 9 was

designed to provide that guidance.

Daily evaluations

The consultant sat with the project team to review participant’s impressions about the training at

the end of the day.

What were the participants’ overall impression about the logistical arrangements of the training?

What were the participant’s overall impressions about the consultant’s facilitation for the day?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Demands for allowances No comments

Evaluation of Day 2


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very Poor Poor Bad Not Bad Fair Good Very Good Excellent



Attendance

DAY 3, WEDNESDAY 27th SEPTEMBER 2017

Field Day with facilitators

Total61

Females25

Males38

Day 2

Total Females Males

Day 3 formed a critical part of analyzing the local market situations of the four selected products.

Field work was designed to augment the session on Introduction to Market Surveys on Day 2. On

field day mission were a total of 15 facilitators from the community and 5 facilitators from the

District. The consultant plus five other logistical personnel from the project team giving us a total

of 26 people divided into four Product-based Groups, i.e., Mungongo, Timber, Seeto and

Charcoal, which had to use four vehicles. It was clear that there was a problem with the selection

of community facilitators prior to the training. A number of community facilitators had to be

handpicked during the training session of Day 2.

Teaching material in Annex 8 was designed to guide the facilitator into what exactly they had to

look for in the field. That is notwithstanding the fact that they would encounter unexpected

information and circumstances either on their way or right in their field work. The findings from

field work were designed to complete the community producers’ home work on the introduction

to market surveys and analysis. This was to be presented the following day on Day 4.

Mungongo processing facility in Sioma (the only Mungongo processing facility in the entire

Western Province of Zambia)

Each of the four groups went its own way until evening. Before the end of the day, the field work

teams reconvened at the Training Center to summarize their findings in their respective groups

and to evaluate the day’s work. The biggest impression of the day was that facilitators learned that

there were significant differences between information they thought they knew about the area and

the reality of things on the ground.

Daily Evaluations

What were the participants’ overall impressions about the logistical arrangements of the training?

What were the participant’s overall impressions about the consultant’s facilitation of the day?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Demands for allowances No comments

Evaluation of Day 3


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very Poor Poor Bad Not Bad Fair Good Very Good Excellent



Attendance

DAY 4, 28th SEPTEMEBR 2017

Facilitators and producers reconvene

Day four started with ironing out logistical issues that emerged from an emotive discussion at close

of Day two, where participants demanded to be paid money instead of being given food. More

than half an hour was spent ironing out the issue before training could resume. It became clear

from the discussion that this issue was never addressed or overlooked during the initial

sensitization phase of the project. BRE representative in the group concluded the matter when he

asserted that the project team was to be excused for its ignorance of the fact that it was a custom

to pay people whenever they were called to leave their homes for such programs. Meanwhile, that

the project team became well aware of the custom, there was no more excuse for them not to pay

the participants. This development was communicated to Ms. Celestina Lwatula at FAO in Lusaka,

who escalated the issue to FAO Country Rep. It was then decided, for the sake of completing the

training, that the project team gives in to the demands of the participants. With the BRE Induna’s

caution, it is beyond doubt that the issue will have to be clear from the beginning of phase 3 training

and participants paid.

On resumption, participants were taken through their homework from Day 2 based on Annex 6.

They presented their analyses of various forest products in different value chains. The aim of this

exercise was to gather the participants’ perceptions, understanding and misunderstandings of the

opportunities and challenges that would come with each of the selected products in different value

chains.

Total26

Females12

Males14

Day 3

Total Females Males

But to consolidate the producers’ perceptions and understandings, facilitators presented their field

survey findings from Day 3. Because producers did not take part in field surveys, facilitators’

presentations were designed to augment the producers’ understandings and to clarify the

misunderstandings about the outlook of local product value chains for the selected four products.

One of the misunderstandings that had to be cleared in this session was a heated discussion around

the seasonality of Mungongo. Facilitators in the Mungongo group discovered the truth about the

issue from the field survey, that Mungongo was, indeed, seasonal.

Facilitators’ Charcoal Group

The group was led by facilitator from the department of Wildlife and National Parks. His presence

as a participant in the training was very crucial for clarifications around the role of his department

in the legal regulation of Devil’s claw. The group discovered a simple and small value chain of

Charcoal production and trade in Sioma. The group found out that there were very few producers

of Charcoal in Sioma, if not one man, who works hard to satisfy local demand from the traditional

method of earth kilns. From the facilitators’ field survey findings scrutinized against the five areas

of sustainable enterprise, Charcoal stood out as a promising product for enterprise development.

Facilitators’ Mungongo Group

The group was led by a female facilitator from

the department of Social welfare and

Community Development. The group noted that

the resource base was huge with an abundance

of the product available in more months of the

year than its off-season period. Family labor is

mainly employed in picking Mungongo which

is consumed at household level and sold to the

only processor within Sioma. The product is

sold in its raw/unprocessed form to a South

African processor based in Sioma.

Mungongo in the village storage shed

Facilitators’ Seeto Group

The group was led by a male community facilitator who has also been used by other NGOs like

WWF as a community facilitator. The group found that regulatory irregularities were the

commonest hindrance for enterprise development with the famous Devil’s claw. The product is on

high demand in Zambia and across the border in Namibia. It is harvested selectively from

communal forests but incidences of harvesters straying into the Sioma Ngweze National Park are

not uncommon. Harvesters of Seeto in Sioma have not undergone any form of training in as far as

harvesting is concerned, but rely on techniques informed by indigenous knowledge. Middlemen

are the key players and trendsetters in the business – they work with Namibian middlemen across

the border who sale the product to Namibian-based Germans. The price of the product fluctuates

according to the season in which it is harvested. But on a good working day, a community harvester

is able to harvest 2x50kg bags of the product, which shrinks to less than 10kg when dried and

processed by the community harvesters before selling it. Wildlife authorities and the local council

do confiscate the product, bulked in their offices but the confiscated product does find its way

secretly back into the value chain. If not confiscated, producers are levied for conveyance without

official receipts. But has legal authority to levy them is a different matter all together.

Facilitators’ Timber Group

The group was led by the female

District Forest Officer (DFO) of Sioma

District. The group had the greatest

challenge of having to travel more than

80 km to the first point of their field

survey. The group noted that the

harvest of timber is done on a large

scale and heavily mechanized but well

regulated. They are very few

community producers involved in the

timber business right from its

production. When they are, it is those

casual laborers engaged in loading and

offloading logs on and off trucks.

Primary production is marred with

numerous challenges which are mainly

mechanical in nature and complicated

by the long distances from the primary

production areas to the main market in

Lusaka and or Livingstone.

The day closed with an introduction to enterprise ideas based on facilitators’ field survey findings

and producers’ value chain analyses of the selected products. The participants had to be paid lunch

allowance and allowed ample time to buy their own lunches. As such, the day’s training had to be

closed at 13: 30 hours, another compromise that needed to be made to accommodate some of the

challenges. First, it took more than an hour to disburse payments to each participants. Secondly,

the participants needed ample time to move around the market looking for lunch, and thirdly, the

participants needed to be ferried back home on time at least by 16:00hors. It was discovered later

on, that the participants did not use the money for lunch but rather sacrificed to stay hungry and

keep the money for subsistence back home. In the evaluation, a few participants complained of

hunger.

Daily evaluations

The consultant and the project team assessed the participants’ evaluative comments for the day

and particularly noted the issue of hunger emerging out of the dissatisfactory issues. The level of

dissatisfaction was remarkably low most likely because of the allowances paid. What were the

participants’ overall impressions about the logistical arrangements for the training?

What were the participants’ overall impressions about the consultant’s facilitation for the day?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Demand for allowances No comments

Evaluation of Day 4


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very poor Poor Bad Not Bad Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Evaluation of the Consultant


Attendance

DAY 5, FRIDAY 29th SEPTEMBER 2017

The key objectives of the day were

Total60

Males39

Females21

Day 4

Total Males Females

(i) To consolidate the development of enterprise ideas around the four selected products

from day four’s work, and

(ii) To demonstrate an understanding of product value chains desired by the participants.

All the 60 participants had to be subsumed into four product interest groups with Charcoal divided

into two groups because more participants expressed interest in the product. Ultimately, it was to

be interesting to see two different enterprise ideas emerging around the same product.

Charcoal Group ‘A’ Enterprise Idea

The group assessed their potential Charcoal enterprise from both an individual and a group

perspective. Having learned from their findings in the field survey, it was noted that an individual

approach was too labor-intensive and would be cost ineffective. Therefore, the group concluded

that a group or cooperative approach was a better option. The group justified their simple enterprise

idea based on the attempt to avert the challenges noted with the product; labor-intensity and

unreliable transport. Cross examined by other groups against the five areas of enterprise

development, the group was convinced that their Charcoal enterprise idea was promising. But

whether it would be profitable or not was a question for phase 3.

Charcoal Group ‘B’ Enterprise

Idea

Interesting from the Charcoal

presentations were the different

ideas emerging around the same

product. Group B highlighted the

challenges involved in the

production and trading of

charcoal; transport, labor and the

poor quality of Charcoal being

key. The group further outlined

the opportunities in Charcoal and

weighed them against the

challenges. Hence the group

builds its idea around sidestepping

these challenges. What is salient

from group ‘B’ is their focus on

the quality of charcoal being an

incentive for a higher price than

group ‘A’. But like group ‘A’,

group ‘B’ equally adopts a

cooperative enterprise because it solves the labor puzzle in the production of Charcoal. The

enterprise idea is promising with rough estimates of ZMW 72, 000 annually from 4 kilns. Whether

these estimated projections are realistic or not is a question for phase 3 training. But to protect the

idea, the group sees need for introduction of community bye-laws around communal forests.

Timber Group Enterprise Idea

Timber group presented two ideas, both group-based ideas. The first idea is based on selective

harvesting of trees that go into a local communal carpentry. The idea is informed by the need for

construction timber in the newly created District of Sioma which is in dire need of infrastructure

developments. In the second idea, the community cooperative goes into a partnership with a chain

saw owner for a stipulated period of time as the community producers realize their need for heavy

and costly machinery. The timber group outlined two different value chains for each of the two

ideas while wary of the fact that timber has huge challenge with production costs but huge profits

too. How profitable will this idea be was reserved for phase 3.

Seeto Group Enterprise Idea

The group is alive to the fact

that lack of government

regulations for the exploitation

of the product is the single

major challenge for enterprise

development. But having been

reassured by the Forest

Department that GRZ was

working on putting a lasting

solution to the problem, the

group had the incentive to

settle for the product – around

which, a group-based business

idea was developed. The

group argued that the

harvesting and primary

processing were too laborious

for an individual enterprise

while acknowledging the fact

that the product was too economically lucrative to be left only for Namibians. The group’s idea

was simple and built around the need to eliminate the middleman. The group raised a critical

argument, questioning why it was easy for the Namibian traders to move around the enterprise in

and out of the country while it was extremely difficult for the Zambians to do the same! The group

could not find an answer to this question during their field survey.

Mungongo Group Enterprise Idea

The group identified the lack of processing machinery as their greatest hurdle, as Mungongo is an

extremely hard nut to crack. The group envisions a cooperative system of enterprise in partnership

with the South African Mungongo processor in Sioma. This idea was informed by the observation

from the field survey that even the South African processor in Sioma was the only one in the entire

province who had the sort of machinery designed to crack and squeeze the nut into oil in a

complicated mechanical process. The group learned that the processor had his machine patented

as he designed it himself. The details of the envisioned partnership which the community producers

are planning will be seen and evaluated in phase 3. Fortunately for the producers, the South African

processor guarantees to play his part in working with organized community producers.

The session with producers ended with a recap of the training from Monday to Friday by selected

participants who had been recorded on video from Day 1. The video snapshots were beamed

through power point presentation to give the participants an unexpected pleasure of seeing

themselves talking on a large screen. In the next cycle of training, participants will be expected to

understand whether their enterprise ideas are profitable or not, as they will be taken through the

details of planning and building an Enterprise.

Facilitator’s session

The last session of the day was with facilitators to underscore the principles of MA&D facilitation

according to Annex 10. The session was also designed to prepare the facilitators for phases 3 and

4 of the second cycle. Facilitators were reminded of the fact that the end of this phase was not the

end of the MA&D process but rather a break to enable them gather more information around their

enterprise ideas.

The consultant and the project team reviewed the participants’ evaluations of the day.

Daily evaluations

What were the participants’ overall impressions about the logistical arrangements of the training

for the day? It must be noted that the demand for allowances shot as the highest grievance after

being paid on Day 4. Essentially, this indicates three possibilities – (i) that the participants were

still not adequately informed that the Day 4 allowances were meant to cover the two remaining

days (ii) participants’ expectations were not properly managed right from the sensitization of the

project, and (iii) as the saying goes – that it is very difficult to satisfy villagers.

What are the participants’ overall impressions about the consultant’s facilitation of the day?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Demand for allowances No comments

Evaluation of Day 5


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Very poor Poor Bad Not bad Fair Good Very Good Excellent



Attendance

Mean 5-Day attendance

Total55

Males36

Females19

Day 5

Total Males Females

61 61

20

60

555140.00%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Average

Average attendance


MA&D NATIONAL CONSULTANCY

TORs

1. Contribute to the design of MA&D training of facilitators and communities

2. Develop training materials for the MA&D training and report

3. Conduct the trainings in MA&D to the targeted facilitators to help them implement the

outcomes of the TCP through all cycles of the training

4. Assist the participants (facilitators) to gather information for cycle II

5. Conduct MA&D training to communities with the help of trained facilitators

6. Develop feedback to work plans developed by training participants

7. Support facilitators and communities in the implementation of MA&D activities in the field

8. Coach forest product interest groups in implementing their EDPs tailored to market needs

and forest products

ma&d phases 1 and 2

Documents