Structure project management in order to capitalize on synergies between related interventions. The Namibia CLS and Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management (CBRLM) Sub-Activities were conceived as complementary investments with certain shared outcomes; the former focused on land rights and the latter focused on land use and livestock management. The interventions were managed by different staff within MCA-Namibia and MCC, and implemented by different contractors. The absence of a unifying project implementation structure, for example a single MCC or MCA project lead with sufficient authority and accountability for both investments and their targeted results, resulted in a loss of natural and planned synergies, and likely undermined results. The CLS independent evaluator expressed doubt about the likelihood of realizing the medium and longer-term outcomes conceived for the complementary set of CLS and CBRLM investments given that key necessary conditions were not achieved. This shortfall is likely at least in part because the interventions were implemented separately despite their interdependent logic. Going forward, when results are interdependent, MCC should better align their strategic oversight, contracting, management, and external accountability, in a way that capitalizes on synergies and increases the likelihood of achieving results. One example that comes closer to this approach is the land project structure MCC is using with Morocco II Compact in which cross-cutting functional roles report to a single project lead. This contrasts with MCC’s traditional matrix structure where cross-cutting roles sit outside of the project and report to a functional manager instead of a project lead.
Lesson Learned