Lobatse Leather Park Project: What will make it successful?
Opinions
I can pick any one of the many projects the government plans to execute during the next five years. The core message in this submission would be the same. The objective is to sensitise the relevant authorities that for any project to succeed, holistic and comprehensive identification and assessment of success factors must be conducted.
It is also critical to identify and engage all the relevant stakeholders including those that may be very critical to the project early during the planning phase for inclusion of their input before the project is given the ‘green light’ to go ahead. I would like to mention five most critical success factors that I believe should be considered and quantified for each one of these projects:
The market for the product(s)
The total cost of production including cost of getting the product to the market
The profit margin and growth potential
The available technology and skills to support the technology and the business
Sustainability
This assumes that there is a dedicated coordinating team that does the detailed planning and manages the whole process on behalf of the project owner (government in this case). The planning phase is the most critical aspect of any project. It is during this phase that all the success factors are identified, assessed critically and quantified comprehensibly. It is a phase that required a small dedicated team with diverse skills, generous time frame as well as a generous working budget for it to succeed.
It is during this phase that all unnecessary costs and risks will be identified. Doing this phase thoroughly will not only reduce the total cost of the project but will also reduce the risks of cost and schedule overruns as well as the risks of project failure.
It is during this phase that detailed and wide ranging benchmarking exercises are carried out to fully appreciate the market conditions as well as the technological limitations and opportunities. It is also a must to engage a ‘gloves off’ external team of experts to audit this work on behalf of the project owner before the planning phase is concluded. This ‘gloves off’ team of experts must be used during the course of the project at given intervals to ensure that no ‘cutting of corners’ and underhand tactics are allowed.
This article is motivated by the number of government projects that have failed over the years at great expense to the nation. I believe these phenomenal failures were due to poor planning and failure to comprehensively and holistically identify and quantify the five critical success factors stated above. The project gurus say, ‘failure to plan is planning to fail’. This is true. Botswana government project failure rate is clearly a result of poor or lack of project planning. We all need to contribute in our small way towards reversing this embarrassing national trend. This submission will hopefully reach some key people in the establishment, who hopefully will take note
It is needless to mention the failed projects as most of them are in the public domain but for perspective I would like to mention some before I turn to the leather project example:
Selebe Phikwe textile factories (you remember those!)!!!
Gaborone and Francistown airports!!
Many schools and police stations!
Palapye glass factory!!!!
Gaborone, Lobatse, Francistown and Serowe stadia!!
Morupule B!!!!!
Tonota/Francistown road and many more!!
I have worked for Debswana for many years and witnessed first hand many large and small projects over the years, none of which have failed, despite the many challenges. The recent relocation of Diamond Trading Company from London to Gaborone was a mammoth project by any standard, with its many challenges was a resounding success, done on time, within budget and meeting the business objectives of the project owners.
The government must draw some lessons from many projects done by Debswana and De beers in Botswana with impressive success rates. These projects were successful not only with respect to budget, safety and schedule but also importantly in meeting the key business objectives defined by the project owners (the share holders).
I choose to talk about the Lobatse leather park project because it has been in the news during the past few weeks. The Minister of Trade describes this project as one of the flagship projects the government is undertaking. He also enthusiastically stated that the project will create over 5 000 jobs.
The president has also been in the news about a number of planned mega government projects that will create significant employment. The president also said that they will be creating Special Implementation Teams to make these projects successful.
We should all be excited about these developments. The intentions are good and if these projects are successful they will indeed move Botswana forward. We want these projects to succeed, but have we planted the right seeds for success? Have we carried out any comprehensive risks identification and mitigation programme?
Have a project manager and his planning team been appointed to carry out detailed planning for each project? How about the critical success factors I have mentioned above? Have they been identified and comprehensibly quantified. If all these have not been done we have identified a number of seemingly very good ploughing fields, with lots of potential, but we have not identified the right fertilisers and right seeds. We have not assessed the field to identify and remove stumps and see that there are no underlying rocks in the field. We do not know whether the water for the field is available, is it rain fed or is it irrigated farming?
We have tractors and world class farmers to plough the fields and plough they will, but because the stumps and rocks are many, they will have lots of breakdowns and delays so the world class farmers will not finish ploughing on time and on budget. The harvesters will toil and sweat in the fields but the harvest will not be enough to fill the barns built at huge cost in anticipation of a bumper harvest. Hunger will persist, despite the good intentions and lots of money having been spent on the fields and accessories.
The special implementation teams, the president talks about come right at the end to implement and hand over to the production team. If the planning has not been done accordingly, the implementation team will implement but will the project succeed and achieve its objectives? Will this poorly planned project with the best implementation team in the world be completed on time and on cost and will the projects meet the intended business objectives? I do not think so. In all cases the implementation and production teams are blamed for the failures that unfortunately originated from poor planning and poor risk management by the project owners.
Let me briefly show and clarify why the five success factors I have mentioned are key to the success of any project. I want to emphasise that these factors will come from the planning and risk management done during the initial phase of any project. They cannot be done during implementation or any other phase of the project.
The market is obviously very important. Where is the market? How big is the market? Is this a growing market? Who are your competitors? What are their competitive advantages? What are your own competitive advantages? How do you get your product to the market?
The production costs are not only important in terms of profitability but also in terms of competition. It is important that all costs are included, including hidden costs (contingencies). Sometimes because of external pressure to get the project approved some costs are left out, only to harm the project during execution and in operations, in some cases making the project a total failure.
The project must be able to achieve a healthy profit margin and there must be clear growth potential for sustainability. So a realistic assessment of this is important to determine viability of the project.
The technology to be employed must be understood including its availability. This is however, the easy part. The more challenging part is the ability to operate and maintain the technology…technology support. Do you have skills to operate and maintain this technology? Do you have skills to assess and adopt alternative technology when the need arises? This is where most projects fail. Here you have to identify your own people and give them the requisite training and skills for them to own the maintenance and operation of the plant or business.
The sustainability element is linked to identification of skills and training a critical mass to operate and maintain as well as to grow the business. Technology is driven by people who have ownership of that technology. The ownership comes from thorough training by the technology owners.
What has failed most government projects is lack of the realisation that the project is not completed at the end of the implementation phase. The implementation is the means to an end. The end is the productive life after implementation. This is why training of locals is very important.
Bringing in expatriates without a critical mass of local expertise is not the solution as it is not sustainable and in many cases it is counter productive as it is seen by locals as disadvantaging them, making some bitter and unproductive as well as creating an unhealthy labour relations environment.
I now want to turn to the Lobatse leather park project to buttress my submission. According to government sources, government will develop a leather park industry in Lobatse by 2015/6 that will churn out over 5000 jobs. LEA did a study to justify this project, but the objectives of the study were only internally focused.
The study was to determine the volumes and values of leather products in Botswana from 2007 to 2009 and challenges faced by the local leather industry during this period. They noted that the leather industries in Botswana have all collapsed and sited reason for failure as the omission to include an effluent treatment plant in the designs because of costs. They also did a benchmarking visit to Namibia and have engaged the Central Leather Research Institute of India as their technical partner.
Just a cursory look at the LEA study which seems to have been used to justify the Lobatse Leather Park project, I honestly believe we have only identified the field and we just want to plant without having adequately assessed this field. This is a recipe for failure. I would not base such a project on the LEA report. A more comprehensive study should have been done and should have at least looked and quantified all the five factors stated at the beginning of this submission.
The leather industry is a multi billion dollar business.
According to the Council for Leather Export of India, where LEA’s international technical partner comes from, the world’s leather import stood at US$22.2 billion in 2011 and was growing at a cumulative annual rate of 7.9 percent. At this rate it should now be standing at US$27.8 billion. India, contributed about 5 percent of the world’s import. The Indian leather industry employed 2.5 million people in 2008/9 and planned to invest to increase export and increase employment by another million by 2014. Look at these numbers!
India is poised to make itself a global destination for sourcing leather products and accessories. State of the art production units and design studios are in place to produce high quality leather products. I wonder why LEA chose to benchmark with Namibia instead of India where they sourced their technical partner. I also wonder why LEA chose a research institution as its technical partner, not an operating industry.
An industry player would know all the ins and outs of the business from a practical not a theoretical point of view. It is this partner than we can benchmark with, who can provide the requisite training for our people from both technical and business perspectives. This industry will require engineers, chemists, technicians, artisans, designers, accountants, HR practitioners, ICT specialists, managers etc. It is this partner that we can have exchange programmes to train our people inn these fields.
With the number of cattle, goats, sheep, wildlife, Botswana should be aiming for a world class leather industry that will employ a lot more than 5 000 people and bring much needed foreign investment and government revenues. But it will not just happen because we say so, it will happen because we have invested in a good plan and we have invested in our human capital.
The difference between government and Debswana project success stories is mainly in the planning and execution management. Also political expediency and interference is a disabling factor in government projects. The government must ensure that they employ experts, not their friends, experts who will advise without fear or favour, experts who will execute professionally without fear or favour. Without such government will continue to spend money on unsuccessful projects.
For the past 10 years or more government has spent inordinate amount of taxpayer’s money on failed projects. The question is what has government done differently (not special implementation teams) this time that will result in the planned projects being delivered successfully and meeting all the intended objectives? The definition of insanity according to Einstein is when you do the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I hope and pray that we can as a nation use, all our limited human capital and finances to identify the real challenges that contributed to the failure of our projects in the past and do something even if it means delaying the planned projects until we fully understand all the success requirements that will take our country forward.
God bless Botswana and merry Christmas to all our beloved people!
Email: bernard.busani@ gmail.com Cell: 71751440
News
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a country’s performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category – indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a “democratic backsliding.”
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africa’s least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key “deliverables,” if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continent’s commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended “consultative process” into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswana’s case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswana’s situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. “State Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,” reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community – Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswana’s commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: socialcontractbw@gmail.com or WhatsApp 77 469 362.
Opinions
The Taiwan Question: China ramps up military exercises to rebuff US provocations
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosis actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as international waters.
Pelosis visit to Chinas Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqus. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to Chinas position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The Peoples Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijings position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwans administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Bidens words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as Taiwan independence. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for Chinas Peoples Liberation Army to safeguard Chinas national sovereignty, security and development interests. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard Chinas overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xis administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector Chinas sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part. Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The Peoples Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces. This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijings military exercises will certainly shake Taiwans confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwans central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As Chinas military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit Chinas Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to Taiwan independence separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the Peoples Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
Opinions
Internal party-democracy under pressure
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswanas democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogaes assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values.This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in theBulela Ditswedispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswewas an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties ruling and opposition have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.