a
October 15, 2014
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS).
LANDSCAPE-SCALE COMMUNITY CENTERED ECOSYSTEM
CONSERVATION PROJECT IN WESTERN TANZANIA
EVALUATION REPORT
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project ii
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number
AID-RAN-I-00-09-00015, Task Order Number AID-621-TO-14-00002, Program Evaluation for
the Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Project in Western Tanzania (JGI), and the
Sustainable Conservation and Livelihoods Efforts in Northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ).
Implemented by:
Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS)
4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 402
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: +1 703-465-9388
Fax: +1 703-465-9344
www.onlinedts.com
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project iii
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LANDSCAPE-SCALE
COMMUNITY CENTERED ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION
PROJECT
EVALUATION REPORT
October 15, 2014
DISCLAIMER
This publication was prepared independently by Allen Turner, Peter Riwa, Christopher
William, and Edward Kigenza of Development Training Services, Inc. at the request of the
United States Agency for International Development. The authors' views expressed herein do
not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or
the United States Government.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project iv
ACRONYMS
CAP Conservation Action Plan
CBDA Community-based Distributing Agent
CBFM Community-based Forest Management
CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management
CBO Community-based Organization
CCRO Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
DCDO District Community Development Officer
DLNRO District Land and Natural Resources Officer
DR Democratic Republic (of Congo)
dTS Development & Training Services, Inc.
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FES Fuel-efficient Stove
FFI Flora and Fauna International
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FM Forest Monitor
FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society
GGE Greater Gombe Ecosystem
GIS Geographic Information System
GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, GmbH (German: Society
for International Cooperation, Ltd.)
GMU Greater Masito-Ugalla
GoT Government of Tanzania
GPS Global Positioning System
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German: Society for
Technical Cooperation, now GIZ)
HH Household
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
IR Intermediate Result
JFM Joint Forest Management
JGI Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research
JUMMATU Jumuiya ya Uhifadhi wa Misitu ya Masito, Tongwe na Ugalla
JUMUNTANGO Jumuiya ya Kuhifadhi Misitu ya Mkuti, Ntanda na Ngogomyi
JUWAMMA Jumuiya ya Watunza Misitu wa Masito
KII Key Informant Interview
LAFR Local Area Forest Reserve
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LOP Life of Project
LUP Land Use Plan
MIS Management Information System
MUE Masito-Ugalla Ecosystem
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NRM Natural Resource Management
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project v
ODK Open Data Kit
PFMP Participatory Forest Management Plan
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PLUM Participatory Land Use Management
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperative Society
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SOW Scope of Work
TACARE Lake Tanganyika Catchment Reforestation and Education Project
TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TUMAKATA Jumuiya Ya Tunza Mazingira Kaskazini Mwa Ziwa Tanganyika
Tuungane Kiswahili for “Let’s Unite”, an integrated conservation and reproductive
health project jointly implemented by TNC, FZS, and Pathfinder
UPP Ugalla Primate Project
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VEO Village Executive Officer
VICOBA Village Community Bank
VLUP Village Land Use Plan
VLUM Village Land Use Management
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation’s (JGI) Landscape- Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project in the Greater Masito-Ugalla landscape
of western Tanzania (the GMU Project) was carried out through a four-year Cooperative Agreement
with United States Agency for International Development in Tanzania (USAID/Tanzania) from
January 2010 through March 2014. It covered 52 administrative villages in an area spanning
1,204,700 ha and over 300,000 people. The area’s forests and miombo woodlands are rich in
biodiversity, including nearly 600 chimpanzees. The project’s goal was to conserve biodiversity, and
protect and restore wildlife habitat in this critical ecosystem. It employed a holistic approach with
two objectives – (a) improved community-based management of natural resources and (b) increased
incomes and benefits from their sustainable use), and seven intermediate results (IRs). The purpose
of this end-of-project evaluation,1
is to help inform USAID, implementing partners, and relevant
stakeholders on:  The overall key achievements and outcomes of the project;  Effectiveness of the project and its integrated design in achieving intended results; and,  Sustainability of the approaches implemented and potential for scaling up. METHODOLOGY
This evaluation was carried out from July to September 2014 by a team of one international and
three national consultants assisted by two enumerators, and in consultation with JGI and project
stakeholders. The evaluation team looked backward and forward, through focus group discussions,
key informant interviews, a mini-survey, and observations with over 200 project implementers and
beneficiaries. It visited 12 villages and met with officials in all four districts. The team’s review of
village land use plans (VLUP) and earlier reports richly informed quantitative secondary information.
Limitations that were overcome included overlapping with prior projects and donors, which
challenged attribution, and managing the sometimes unrealistic expectations of beneficiaries. The
team corroborated findings and elicited feedback across a diverse range of stakeholders.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.FINDINGS
The project’s principal activity, the development of village land use plans (IR1) has been carried out
successfully in ten of the twelve villages visited. Forest management has clearly improved in eight of
them. Under the Government of Tanzania’s VLUP policy, the plans have established village
boundaries and land use zones, and are seen by village and district leaders as a strategic tool for
managing conflict, as well as resources. The process has strengthened dialogue between such groups
as farmers and agropastoralists, district officers and village leaders, and across villages. Village
1 Given the recent (July 2014) decision to extend support for JGI through 2018, the Mission noted that the evaluation
can now be seen as “more of a mid-term evaluation” than an end-of-project evaluation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project vii
leaders who received training say they have improved their leadership skills. In five of the villages
visited, limited transparency has affected key processes, including selecting land use management
(VLUM) team members, deciding the boundaries of use areas, enforcing by-laws, and distributing
benefits. Local governments see VLUPs as a way to institutionalize more sustainable management, by establishing VLUMs, forest monitors (FMs), and fire scouts under the village government
structure. Scaling up implementation will be challenging, given the high costs of the current land
use planning model.
Building on the VLUM structure, experience and interest at the village level, the GMU Project
created five community-based organizations (CBOs) to help create and to manage a forest corridor
around Gombe National Park and the much larger, open-access and, as yet effectively unmanaged,
Masito-Ugalla “general lands” (IR2). JGI also joined with other partners to establish and support a
steering committee that brings together the four district councils. Supported by monitoring and
enforcement of by-laws (IR5), regeneration in degraded forest areas is already evident in the forests
around Gombe National Park, and comparable improvement could begin in the Masito-Ugalla
miombo woodlands,2 where the development of VLUPs has begun to curtail deforestation, although
tree-felling remains common. While most villagers have little sense of ownership of the VLUPs, village leaders show clear interest in management rights to resources on the general lands and
understand the benefits of managing access to hitherto open-access forest areas. Although still
dependent on project resources, the CBOs are a step towards cross-village dialogue on conservation.
Low-cost, low-tech fuel-efficient stoves have been adopted in areas that face fuel wood shortages.
Woodlots using traditional tree species offer a promising alternative fuel source, however, the
plantations visited by the evaluation team were all quite recent (IR3). The time needed for trees to
mature, challenges rapid scale-up. Fire incidence has declined by 29 percent. Although the project
ended in March 2014, fire management teams (IR4) and the newly created cadre of FMs (IR5)
reported that they continue to carry out patrols even absent the financial incentives they received
from the project. Although not yet integrated into the village government structure, village
governments have begun to collect fines, some of which could be used to support fire management
and forest monitoring. Adoption of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices (IR6) has been mixed and, with the
exception of coffee and private woodlots, the project’s livelihood activities (IR7) have not attracted
villagers to invest in them. Coffee has built well on private sector collaboration to improve quality
and marketing through direct, hands-on learning. 2. CONCLUSIONS
The GMU Project’s objectives align with the two most important opportunities: (a) Strengthening
the emerging foundation of natural resource governance at the village and district levels through the
VLUP process, the project’s most effective contribution to improving natural resource management,
and (b) Building on best practices from promising livelihood activities. The most promising project
interventions are those which demonstrate tangible benefit: application of VLUP by-laws to improve
forest management; private nurseries and woodlots; quality control in coffee processing; and the
incipient use of fees for resource use. That forest monitors and VLUMs have remained active with
2 Unlike the forests around Gombe National Park, these woodlands are still sufficiently intact, such that they do not
require regeneration – rather, they require protection, so that they do not degrade further.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project viii
minimal support is a promising indicator of sustainability. VLUPs have identified conservation
values, partitioned acceptable uses, and set limits clearly enough to enable stakeholders to address
the growing pressures on these lands, manage conflicts, and guide the introduction of improved
production technology. The regeneration of natural forest in communities near Gombe National
Park is the most striking impact. Land use planning’s contribution, nonetheless, has the potential
for still greater impact in the much larger Gombe-Masito ecosystem. The most significant factor undermining sustainability is a legacy of long-standing habits of
dependency that have been encouraged by other donor projects over many decades. The project’s
fundamental challenge in the next phase is to transition from an externally donor-driven project to
locally-led and locally-owned initiatives that sustain themselves and scale up. Local commitment to
managing the forest appears to have been strengthened most strongly not by income “alternatives,”
e.g., to livelihood activities based on conversion of or extraction from forest lands, but by the
perception that management can yield tangible benefits from the forest, itself. With the exception of
some coffee producers, farmers have yet to understand market dynamics. Addressing the challenges
of developing environmentally friendly livelihood opportunities will require fully integrating a value
chain perspective into JGI’s strategic action planning and day-to-day field-level support. By
continuing to strengthen VLUP structures and processes, follow-on programs can explore ways to
manage offtake, while protecting the forests’ ecological functions and conservation values.
The potential of the project’s innovative use of information technologies for natural resource
management has begun to be seen at the district level, although village governments and VLUMs
have not yet taken up these technologies to regularly inform their decision making. While the team’s
village encounters were male-dominated in all cases, the team was struck on a number of occasions
by the clarity, insight, depth and breadth of understanding that women added to the discussion.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the above findings and conclusions, the recently agreed four-year follow-on initiative
should:  Balance investment in addressing conservation values and their corresponding livelihood-related
drivers. To develop and strengthen livelihood opportunities, JGI must ensure that a value chain
perspective is given equal weight to a conservation perspective. JGI should apply an adaptive
learning model that integrates the conservation, livelihoods and natural resource governance
dimensions.  Carry out a dual approach. It should go “deeper” in selected villages, while supporting districts
to maintain “broader” presence in the remaining villages. JGI should develop a model for
information management and sharing that enablea comparative analysis over time and across
landscapes, districts, and villages.  Place primary stakeholders in the driver’s seat, beginning at the village level and supported at the
district level. In selected villages, JGI should work with stakeholders to review existing
participatory rural appraisals (PRA) and VLUPs with communities to ensure that land use plans
(LUP) fully reflect their own categories and priorities. JGI should help districts and villages
identify, articulate and build on the positive elements/activities carried out in the past, as well as
lessons learned. JGI should reformulate the results it expects to achieve to ensure that they
become locally “owned” and develop an index to measure local institutional capacity.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project ix
 Strengthen the participation and capacity of women in the decision making and implementation
of project-supported activities. JGI should consider strengthening the community-based health
capacities already in place, much of which employ sound gender approaches.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................vi
Background ..................................................................................................................................................vi
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................vi
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations......................................................................................vi
1. Findings...............................................................................................................................................vi
2. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................vii
3. Recommendations...........................................................................................................................viii
Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
Project Goal, Objectives, and Intermediate Results................................................................................1
Background and Project Formulation.......................................................................................3
Overview........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Brief Description of the GMU Project .....................................................................................................3
Project Partners and Beneficiaries .............................................................................................................4
Methodology/Limitations.........................................................................................................5
Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................................................5
Data Collection and Analysis...................................................................................................................... 5
Challenges and Limitations......................................................................................................................... 7
Findings.....................................................................................................................................8
Project Design...............................................................................................................................................8
IR1: Village Land Use Plans in targeted villages developed and implemented ...................................9
Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................................9
Relevance of Targets .............................................................................................................................. 9
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................10
Sustainability ..........................................................................................................................................11
Scalability................................................................................................................................................12
IR2: Forest connectivity achieved and maintained through community-based forest management12
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................12
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................13
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................13
Sustainability and Scalability ................................................................................................................14
IR3: Major drivers of deforestation identified and mitigated ..............................................................15
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................15
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................15
Effectiveness in Achieving Intended or Expected Outcomes.......................................................15
Sustainability ..........................................................................................................................................16
Scalability................................................................................................................................................17
IR4: Capacity of the community to manage forest fires increased .....................................................17
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................17
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project xi
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................17
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................17
Sustainability and Scalability ................................................................................................................18
IR5: Capacity of local government authorities to monitor illegal extraction of forest resources
increased ......................................................................................................................................................18
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................18
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................18
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................19
Sustainability and Scalability ................................................................................................................19
IR6: Environmentally friendly agricultural practices are promoted....................................................20
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................20
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................20
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................20
Sustainability and Scalability ................................................................................................................20
IR7: Income from environmentally friendly enterprises in project area developed and diversified21
Approach and Methodology ...............................................................................................................21
Relevance of Targets ............................................................................................................................21
Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................................21
Sustainability and Scalability ................................................................................................................23
Cross-cutting Issues and Wrap-Around Activities................................................................................23
Gender....................................................................................................................................................23
Environmental Education ...................................................................................................................23
HIV/AIDS.............................................................................................................................................23
Training ..................................................................................................................................................24
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 25
Overall Conclusions...................................................................................................................................25
Conclusions on Nature..............................................................................................................................25
Conclusions on Wealth..............................................................................................................................26
Conclusions on Power...............................................................................................................................27
Conclusions on the Adaptive, Holistic approach ..................................................................................27
Conclusions on Ownership (including gender and social inclusion)..................................................28
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 30
1. Balance Conservation and Livelihood/Drivers.................................................................................30
2. Dual Approach .......................................................................................................................................31
3. Stakeholder Ownership.........................................................................................................................32
4. Strengthen Participation and Capacity of Women (and Other Disadvantaged Groups) ............33
5. Consider Health......................................................................................................................................33
Lessons Learned...................................................................................................................... 34
References................................................................................................................................ 35
Annexes.................................................................................................................................... 36
Annex A: Results Framework/USAID...................................................................................................37
Annex B: Statement of Work ...................................................................................................................38
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project xii
Annex C: Members of Evaluation Team................................................................................................43
Annex D: Evaluation Findings by Site and Stakeholder Institution...................................................45
1. Annex Table D.1: Evaluation Findings by Site ............................................................................45
2. Evaluation Findings by Stakeholder Institution: Summary Notes............................................54
3. Background Data on Value Chains: Coffee and Honey Sales ...................................................65
4. Background Data on Forest Patrols by Village ............................................................................66
Annex E. Village Land Use Planning and Management.......................................................................67
Annex F: Sources of Information............................................................................................................72
Annex G: Project Pictures.........................................................................................................................97
Annex H: Detailed Recommendations .................................................................................................112
Annex I: Data Collection Tools.............................................................................................................117
Annex J: Data Collection Schedule........................................................................................................162
Annex K: Map of the Project Area........................................................................................................164
Annex L: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest................................................................................165
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 1
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND INTERMEDIATE RESULTS
The GMU Project’s goal was to conserve biodiversity, and protect and restore wildlife habitat in this
critical ecosystem. It employed a holistic approach, focusing on community-based management of
forests and woodlands, and the promotion of more sustainable, productive livelihood practices.
Cross-cutting issues included gender, environmental education, climate change adaptation and
mitigation, and HIV/AIDS education and sensitization.
Through conservation interventions at the village and landscape scale levels, the GMU Project
sought to achieve two key objectives: (1) An expanded area under improved natural resource
management (NRM); and (2) Increased incomes and benefits from the sustainable use of natural
resources. The main project intermediate results (IRs) were:
3
IR1: VLUPs in targeted villages developed and implemented;
IR2: Forest connectivity achieved and maintained through community-based forest management;
IR3: Major drivers of deforestation identified and mitigated;
IR4: Capacity of the community to manage forest fires increased;
IR5: Capacity of local government authorities to monitor illegal extraction of forest resources
increased;
IR6: Environmentally-friendly agricultural practices are promoted; and,
IR7: Income from environmentally-friendly enterprises in project area developed and diversified. Although the project description is set forth as above, the results framework, aligned with USAID’s
results framework, sets forth a third objective that aligns with IRs 1 (land use planning) and 5
(monitoring illegal extraction): Laws and policies supporting conservation and forest connectivity. Under this result framework, IR 7 supports Objective 2; the others are shown as supporting
Objective 1. Table 1 shows targets and achievements for each IR’s indicators over the life of the
project. The results framework is shown in Annex A. The purpose of the end-of-program evaluation,4 as set forth in the evaluation scope of work (see
Annex B), is to help inform USAID, implementing partners and relevant stakeholders on:  The overall key achievements and outcomes of the project;  Effectiveness of the project and its integrated design in achieving intended results; and,  Sustainability of the approaches implemented and potential for scaling up.
3 As stated in the revised Performance Management Plan of August 2013. 4 Given the recent (July 2014) decision to extend support for JGI through 2018, the Mission noted that the evaluation
can now be seen as “more of a mid-term evaluation” than an end-of-project evaluation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 2
Table 1: Life of Project (LOP) Targets by Intermediate Result5
Indicator Target Achievement
Goal: Conserve biodiversity and protect/restore habitat
Number of hectares showing improved biophysical conditions 200,000 198,810
Number of hectares under improved management 770,000 736,867
Number of chimps 735 576
IR 1: VLUPS
Number of villages with Village LUPs developed 24 22
Number of villages implementing LUPs 52 49
IR 2: Forest connectivity
Number of operating Participatory Forest Management Plans Developed 33 19
Number of CBOs managing interconnected forests 6 5
IR 3: Drivers of deforestation identified and mitigated
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to impacts of CC 11,003 13,125
Number of households implementing energy efficient measures 5,000 14,601
Number of households with pure woodlots 325 354
Number of CC vulnerability assessments conducted 2 2
Number of studies on major drivers of deforestation identified 1 1
IR 4: Capacity of the community to manage forest fires increased
Number of institutions with improved capacity to address CC 159 116
Number of villages with fire management plans 15 16
Number of active village fire-fighting crews in targeted villages 16 16
% reduction of forest fires in targeted villages 45% 29%
IR 5: Capacity of LG Authorities to monitor illegal extraction increased
Number of forest patrols conducted by district patrol teams 8 3
Number of villages conducting regular patrols. 52 49
Number of Forest Monitors/ Scouts trained 57 61
IR 6: Environmentally friendly agricultural practices promoted
Number of households adopting sustainable farming practices 280 155
IR 7: Income from environmentally friendly enterprises developed…
Number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable NRM &
conservation (disaggregated by sex)
7,860 106,484
Number of active community-based microfinance associations 30 25
$ value generated through environmentally friendly enterprises 85,000 55,783
Gender
Proportion of Females participants in programs designed to increase access to
productive economic resources
2,700/7,450 2,589/5,663
5 Sources: August 2013 revision of the GMU Program Team’s Performance Monitoring Plan; GMU project’s final
quarterly report…January–March, 2014 (Emmanuel Mtiti, 2014); and JGI clarifications
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 3
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT
FORMULATION
OVERVIEW
The Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project in Western Tanzania
targeted the Greater Masito-Ugalla (GMU) landscape. The GMU Project was implemented by the
Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation (JGI), with funding from
the United States Agency for International Development in Tanzania (USAID/Tanzania). On
December 10, 2009, USAID/Tanzania awarded JGI US $5.6 million for a four-year cooperative
agreement with an effective date of January 4, 2010. JGI agreed to contribute a cost-sharing amount
of US $545,000. Following a three-month, no-cost extension, the project ended on March 31, 2014.
On July 3 2014, USAID executed a modification of assistance to JGI of US $4.8 million for a four- year follow-on of Cooperative Agreement AID-621-A-00-10-00009 through March 31, 2018.
The project targeted the GMU landscape in western Tanzania and 52 administrative villages. GMU
spans 1,204,700 ha and claims a population of over 300,000 people. Forest and miombo woodlands
cover 63 percent of the landscape, which is rich with biodiversity and home to many primates and
other threatened species, including a population of approximately 576 chimpanzees.6 The project
was located in Kigoma district (47 villages) and Mpanda district (six villages), covering the Greater
Gombe and Masito-Ugalla ecosystems, including a corridor between the two. Although Mpanda
district had fewer villages, it comprised over 60 percent of the project area.7 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE GMU PROJECT
“Dr. Jane Goodall, the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) began chimpanzee research at
Gombe National Park in western Tanzania in 1960. Rapid deforestation in Kigoma region was
observed around 1970s following refugee influxes from Congo DR and Burundi and establishment
of Ujamaa villages where dispersed local communities were brought together into concentrated
villages. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates deforestation
to be at 1 percent per annum.
“In responding to the rapid degradation of forests in the area, JGI initiated the Lake Tanganyika
Catchment Reforestation and Education Project (TACARE) in October 1994. The project
addressed both forest conservation and community livelihoods in recognition of the fundamental link
between the loss of the area’s forests and the socio-economic needs of local communities. Initially,
TACARE was focusing on 24 villages in Kigoma district, but 2005 to 2009, JGI scaled up the
TACARE approach to a landscape scale effort through implementation of the Greater Gombe
Ecosystem (GGE), a community-centered conservation focusing in Kigoma District and a similar
program in the Masito-Ugalla Ecosystem covering villages in Kigoma and Mpanda districts. In
January 2010, JGI launched the Gombe-Masito- Ugalla program that extends from the Burundi
6 Piel, Alex, Fiona Stewart, and Naomi Cohen (2014), Monitoring the Masito-Ugalla Ecosystem: 2014 Chimpanzee
Survey, January-February 2014, Ugalla Primate Project. 7 Revised Performance Management Plan of August 2013.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 4
border in the north and extends southwards to Mpanda district in Rukwa region. The program
covers 52 villages and was designed based on the Conservation Action Plans (CAP) developed by
GGE and Masito Ugalla ecosystem conservation programs.”8
PROJECT PARTNERS AND BENEFICIARIES
JGI’s GMU Project partners included the district councils of Kigoma and Mpanda,9 The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), Pact Tanzania and the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS). Local communities
in the districts were the primary target group that directly participated in implementing the program
and managing the natural resources. National and local government authorities in each of the
districts (Forest and Beekeeping Division, Wildlife Division) provided policy and technical support
in resource management and policy guidance. The government and local communities were
partners, as well as beneficiaries, of program services. TNC provided support in monitoring the
implementation of CAP strategies, conducted an assessment on the effects of climate change, and
facilitated the development and implementation of adaptation strategies. Former Pact Tanzania
governance experts provided expertise in governance, accountability and transparency to CBOs in
the program area. FZS implemented activities in five villages adjacent to Mahale National Park, and
focused on LUP and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM).10
8 Revised Performance Management Plan of August 2013
9 In early 2013 the two districts were each divided, creating two new district councils: Uvinza (from Kigoma, in Kigoma
Region) and Nsimbo (from Mpanda, in Katavi Region). 10 This section has been taken almost verbatim from the revised PMP of 2013.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 5
METHODOLOGY/LIMITATIONS
The evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project in
Western Tanzania was conducted from July to September 2014, with field work carried out from
July 31 to August 26. The evaluation team was comprised of one international and three national
consultants, assisted by two enumerators, as shown in Annex B. EVALUATION DESIGN
In light of the July 2014 follow-on agreement that came after the original evaluation’s scope of work
was prepared, USAID, JGI and the evaluation team agreed that the evaluation should look both
backward to achievements and limitations, and forward to explore ways to improve relevance,
effectiveness, sustainability and the potential for scaling up. Because the non-experimental study
design lacked a comparison group (essentially a one-group, pretest-posttest design), the evaluation
team did not search for cause-and-effect relationships with respect to achievements. Most questions
regarding scope of work were formative ones aimed at understanding how well the project was
delivered. The most effective design was a non-experimental one based largely on qualitative data.
The team was, nonetheless, able to explore the evolution of processes and causal inference, aided by
CAPs, studies and programmatic data from the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). The cross- sectional evaluation process enabled the team to observe the project’s engagement across different
village and district contexts, beneficiary categories (including gender), partner engagement types, and
degrees of progress.
Given the evaluation’s broad scope, including nine evaluation questions across seven IRs (see Annex
C), the evaluation team benefitted from stakeholder insight at an inception meeting in Kigoma on
July 31, 2014. JGI staff and regional and district-level government stakeholders from four districts
recommended the team cover all districts and visit villages with both intact and degraded habitats,
lakeside and inland livelihood bases, and older (TACARE-initiated) and “newer” villages. The
report also responds to feedback on preliminary findings on August 25, 2014, from village leaders
and district officials, who also recommended ways forward. The team held a debriefing meeting with
USAID and JGI’s Tanzania program leaders on August 28, prior to writing the report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The team used primary and secondary data sources. Primary
data came from focus group discussions (FGD), key
informant interviews (KII) and observations through a cross- section of program implementers, partners and beneficiaries.
Within the time limit available for the evaluation, the team
held discussions with government leaders in all four districts, and visited 12 villages on a landscape stretching from the
north of Gombe National Park to close to Mahale and Katavi
National Parks in the south. The villages visited in each
district council are presented in Table 2. The team visited selected villages, accompanied by a village executive officer (VEO) or other local
government official. In each, it was met by village government leaders or village council members in
a central place, usually the village government office, a marketplace or a school. In this opening
Table 2: Sites Visited
District Villages Visited
Kigoma Bubango, Chankele, Kalinzi,
Kigalye, Mwamgongo
Mpanda Bugwe, Vikonge
Nsimbo Katambike
Uvinza Ilagala, Kirando, Kasuku,
Kazuramimba
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 6
meeting, team members explained evaluation objectives and how they would engage with the
community. They sought informed consent and permission to record individual discussions. In the
first village meeting (Chankele), the team piloted methods and learned it needed to manage
expectations for payment of “sitting allowances,” which appeared to be a sensitive issue that could
hinder progressing to a discussion of the subject matter. Upon receiving permission to discuss and
record, the team engaged with community members as groups organized around the project
activities they were involved in. It met with village government representatives, VLUM team
members involved with the VLUPs, and other groups and individuals, including fire management
teams, CBOs, forest monitors (FM), beekeepers, woodlot and/or nursery operators, savings and
credit cooperative societies (SACCOS), ecotourism groups, and farmers. Using discussion and key
informant guides, team members spoke with both women and men, explored the way communities
have engaged with and benefited from the project, and solicited recommendations for the future.
The team was flexible and often adapted FGD or KII guides on-site, relative to each group’s
understanding of specific themes. In most cases, the evaluation team chose to adapt guides toward
more informal discussion of the project that enabled them to gather anecdotal stories about past
interventions or perspectives, insights and information on key issues relating to improving natural
resource management.
Discussions were recorded digitally and debriefed daily to triangulate findings between groups, draw
site conclusions, review processes and methods applied that day, analyze challenges encountered,
and make adjustments as needed. On a weekly basis, the team drew conclusions across sites, and
further reviewed and adjusted its methods in light of overall progress. In addition to village
discussions, the team consulted with key national and district council-level stakeholders, JGI staff, and JGI implementing partners.11 Summaries of both village visits and key stakeholder discussions
were compiled from initial drafts by individual team members and reviewed serially by every other
team member. Findings are summarized in Annexes D and E. Respondent types are presented in
Table 3, below. A full list of stakeholders is presented in Annex F.2. Table 3: Number of Respondents by Type and Location
Type of Informant Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Dar es
Salaam
Other12 Total
Community Members 82 16 31 25 154
District Stakeholders 12 12 11 8 43
National stakeholders13 3 1 1 5
JGI Team 9 1 2 12
JGI Partners 2 2
USAID staff14 9 9
Others 2 3 5
Total 110 29 42 33 11 5 230
11 Of the 48 FGDs carried out, 43 were with village-level groups, including seven discussions with only women, 11 with
only men, and 30 mixed-gender discussions. 12 Other includes JGI staff and other informants based outside of Tanzania. 13 Two regional secretaries are included as “national” stakeholders
14 Participants in the introductory meeting and/or out-briefing. Interviews were not carried out with most USAID staff.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 7
In additional to qualitative data, the team collected quantitative data using a semi-structured
questionnaire with a limited number15 of households to triangulate qualitative information collected
through FGDs and KIIs and discussions. Twenty-five such surveys were conducted.
The evaluation team reviewed over 50 documents related to the GMU Project, in addition to
selected background documents. Documents were collected before and during the team’s fieldwork. The team discussed them in light of key themes and issues identified before and during village visits. The team reviewed 27 of the 49 village VLUPs, including plans for 10 of the 12 villages visited; 16
of the 17 quarterly progress reports; selected training manuals and materials and studies; two CAPs
(Gombe Forest and Masito-Ugalla) and an analysis of deforestation drivers; a number of ecological
and socio-economic surveys and studies; and two peer reviews, as listed in the bibliography (see
Annex F.1). Respondents are categorized by gender in Table 4. Table 4: Respondents by Gender
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
While the qualitative information gathered by the team is not statistically representative, it does
provide a rich complement to representative quantitative information available through project- supported studies, including ecological, socio-economic, geospatial and other surveys and studies.
The team was challenged by the number of sites that could be visit within the limited time allowed
for fieldwork, which was compounded by the distances between villages. It traveled on public
holidays to maximize limited time in the field. Many areas visited had worked with JGI on earlier
and/or other donor-funded activities, the most significant of which was TACARE. Despite the
evaluation team’s constant reminders, community-level respondents often had difficulty focusing
their reflections on the GMU Project period of 2010-2014, which made attribution difficult. The
absence of an electronic management information system (MIS) meant that baselines were not
available on a village-by-village basis, further hampering some of the analysis. The VLUPs,
however, provided a good foundation for discussions in each village. Although the team anticipated
difficulty in managing community expectations, it, in fact, found community members in all villages
eager to discuss issues openly and in-depth without compensation. On a few occasions, some
respondents – including village leaders – acted manipulatively, gave “choreographed” answers and
attempted to extort money. The team pushed for tangible examples and corroborated findings
across different groups within the village before drawing conclusions. The team believes its
responses adequately mitigated the challenges experienced.
15The mini-survey questionnaire explored ways in which village men and women were involved in or benefitted from the
project. Based on a field test in Chankele, where none of the randomly selected households said they were involved in
project activities, the evaluation team decided to limit interviews to households identified by village government leaders
as having participated in and/or benefited directly from the project. This limited the households that were readily
accessible. See Annex F.3 for further survey details.
Type of
Informant
Community
Members
District
Stakeholder
National
Stakeholder
JGI
Team
JGI
Partners
USAID
Staff*
Others Total
Female 45 8 2 4 3 3 65
Male 109 35 3 8 2 6 2 165
Total 154 43 5 12 2 9 5 230
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 8
FINDINGS16
PROJECT DESIGN
The GMU Project’s development hypothesis is that “the best way to achieve both economic
development and biodiversity conservation in rural landscapes is to address the two simultaneously
by involving and empowering the local population to make responsible natural resource
management decisions.”17 The project developed a community-centered model that sought to instill
a sense of forest management ownership that would enhance capacity to make informed, sound
forest management decisions that improved forest health and social well-being. From the outset, the project placed greater emphasis on conservation than livelihoods. The budget
earmarked funding of US $4.2 million for biodiversity, $300,000 for climate change, and only
$300,000 for agriculture. CAPs were the project’s foundation. The first, for the Greater Gombe
Ecosystem, was organized around specific strategies for each of five chimpanzee populations and
the meta-population of chimps, supported by strategies for watersheds and forests. Through its
Roots and Shoots/Education program, the project reached out widely to communities (and youth in
schools) with conservation messages that were well articulated by villagers everywhere the team
visited. With supporting analyses, CAPs provided a solid foundation for the GMU Project’s most
significant achievements – an integrated set of land use plans and by-laws, knowledgeable local
leaders, and a cadre of trained FMs that have begun to regenerate the forest corridor around Gombe
National Park and reduce deforestation and fire throughout the GGE.
The GMU Project’s studies focused more on conservation than the economic parameters driving
land use change or the exploitation of natural resources. Of 12 major studies, two household (HH)
surveys are the only socio-economic ones. JGI carried out no study comparable in depth to the
CAPs or the study on drivers investigated the diverse livelihood strategies and options relevant to
the project’s stakeholders active at the village level. CAPs did not effectively address these
stakeholders’ main interests in the landscape, which were oriented more toward tangible benefits like
household livelihoods for and institutional revenues.
The GMU Project’s 2011 household survey nonetheless explored some of these issues, noted the
lack of balance, and recommended adding an agricultural specialist to JGI’s core team. It was later
agreed, however, that, as a more sustainable approach, JGI should make better use of existing
resources – Government of Tanzania (GoT) agriculture officers at the district level, and agriculture
extension officers at division level. The first peer review, in 2011, recommended reassessing threats
and associated strategies, and highlighted some emerging threats. Recommendations regarding
livelihood, for example, were, unfortunately, limited to reviewing sustainable agriculture strategies, assessing what actual benefits accrued from alternative income-generating investments, and
developing criteria for defining which activities counted as “environmentally friendly.”
16 As much as possible, findings are formulated as value-free and conclusion-free observations of what was found in
field travel visits, focus group discussions, and document review. 17 The Jane Goodall Institute (2009), Landscape-Scale Community-Centered Ecosystem Conservation in Western
Tanzania: Technical Application Program Description, July 17, 2009.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 9
IR1: VILLAGE LAND USE PLANS IN TARGETED VILLAGES
DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The VLUP process, as set forth in the revised GoT guidelines, consists of six sequential steps18 that
have generally been followed in the four districts (Kigoma Rural, Mpanda Rural, Nsimbo and
Uvinza19). Forty-nine of 52 targeted VLUPs are reported to have been developed by JGI in
partnership with their district councils and FZS in Kigoma and Mpanda regions. Thirteen VLUPs
were developed under the GGE project, eight under MUE, and five by FZS. Between 2010 and
March 2014, the GMU Project completed through Step 4 in 19 villages (see Annex E-1). Seeing VLUP guidelines as a legally defined
process, JGI and district technical staff exercised
little flexibility in implementation, which affected
costs, JGI’s role in facilitating village-level
activities, the composition of the district-level
participatory land use management (PLUM)
team, and by-law formulation and enforcement.
Opinion and practice on user forest fees varies
from community to community. None of the
villages visited had developed by-laws for user
fees. One village government (Katambike) has
collected fees of TSh 1.4 million. Some of the
villagers felt fees should not be paid by residents
for use of forest resources in the village; they
believe only outsiders should be charged. VLUP
by-laws only specify fines as punishment for
specific offenses. When asked, district officials
were not aware that fee collection had occurred.
Incorporating local knowledge into VLUPs has
generally been limited to existing land uses in the
villages. Details of area-specific resources, long￾term and recent changes in trends, and seasonal
cycles are covered unevenly in the plans of
different villages. Annex E-2 provides a
summary of some elements covered in LUPs. RELEVANCE OFTARGETS
Village leaders and district councils cherish LUPs for having set up by-laws for managing land and
natural resource use within their villages. Without VLUPs, village governments and district councils
18 In addition to the six steps, annex materials in the guidelines provide additional guidance for establishing village land
registries and issuing certificates of customary right to occupancy (CCRO). Informants in a few villages expressed keen
interest in VLUPs, primarily as a step toward using a CCRO as collateral for loans from financial institutions. 19 Nsimbo and Uvinza districts were newly created from Mpanda and Kigoma, respectively, only after the project began.
“…without land use plans there is no law you can use
to keep agro-pastoralists from bringing their herds into
the villages…It is a national problem…[and] the
question raised is ‘where should pastoralists go?’ But
our underlying challenge is the absence of land use
plans due to our limited budget.” Mpanda District
Council technical staff
“[Our] technical support to villages [for land use
planning] related uses to carrying capacity…Land use
plans are also subject to review every 10 years to
accommodate population change…Processing of
applications for land use by new immigrants should
take carrying capacity into consideration.” Nsimbo
District Council technical staff
“…good governance and rule of law are not only
helping villages in terms of environmental protection
but are also strengthening village capacity to govern
socio-economic and other aspects of life…even security
in the villages has improved due to good governance
assisted by the project.” Kigoma District Council
Solicitor
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 10
cannot prosecute unplanned and uncontrolled livestock incursions from the neighboring regions of
Shinyanga and Tabora, whence agropastoralists are increasingly entering through the districts’ porous boundaries. Other values mentioned are pre-empting and settling boundary disputes, raising
attention on carrying capacity, and improved peace.
EFFECTIVENESS
VLUP development succeeded when community participation was supported by village government
and the process was reasonably transparent. VLUPs were developed successfully in ten of the twelve
villages visited, and forest management has clearly improved in eight. VLUPs have established
village boundaries and land use zones; land use signboards communicate those zones to community
members and support voluntary compliance. The GMU
Project’s financial, technical, and logistical support for
VLUP development contributed to face-to-face dialogue
between district staff and community members. Although
the GoT guidelines were interpreted as precluding JGI from
facilitating their engagement more strategically, the
opportunity for dialogue appears, nonetheless, to have
contributed to local ownership. JGI also supported training and district efforts to push for higher￾level approvals. In discussions with VLUM members, the evaluation team observed democratic and, at times, very spirited participation.
Village government leaders who received training have reportedly improved their leadership skills.
They are elected for five years and, in many cases, start working without prior governance training;
training new leaders on the VLUP process is a must after local government elections.
In five villages, limited transparency has affected some key processes, including selecting VLUM
members, deciding use area boundaries, enforcing by-laws, and distributing benefits. VLUP creation
has also suffered from politicization. In Bugwe, for example, a village meeting to initiate the VLUP
process was disrupted by rumors that it was a malicious plan to grab land from herders. In Vikonge
village, the process stalled following VLUM member selection that included the then-village
chairperson and VEO. Lack of transparency led to their expulsion as village government leaders.
The district authority’s attempt to organize an election of new leaders failed, and the VLUP process
is on hold until the next nationwide local government elections at the end of 2014. In Vikonge, too,
some villagers construed that JGI was colluding with the village government to take land from the
community through the VLUP process, a fear fueled by rumors of land acquisition for large-scale
agriculture. Others expressed concern that relatively wealthy livestock owners who had recently
immigrated were unduly influencing land use decisions and management. District officials said that
Bugwe and Vikonge, “have learned their lesson and are ready to re-engage.” Village leaders
confirmed, saying, “We want JGI to come with washed hands.”
Village government leadership has been weakened where local elections replaced leaders who had
received training with new ones who had not actively participated in the land use planning process, and had only limited experience with community mobilization. By-law enforcement is weak in some
villages, and leaders are reportedly linked to the illegal harvesting of forest resources in three of the
villages visited. Katambike tried to set high fines as a deterrent. District council legal advisors, however, interpreted the national law to limit fines to a maximum of TSh 50,000 (approximately US
$30), as opposed to the higher figure of TSh 1 million (about US $600) that is also mentioned in the
“Training through JGI helped us to know
the right procedure for apprehending
contraveners of bylaws in the village. Now
we know how to resolve conflicts better.”
Village leader in Kazuramimba.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 11
law.20 District technical officers and JGI have agreed that the follow-on project should train
magistrates to better align district-level enforcement measures with the intent of the VLUPs.
Some villages have developed innovative ways to cost-effectively implement LUPs. Cross-village
dialogue, for example, has contributed to improved forest management, including monitoring illegal
fires and extractive use. In Katambike, the VLUM team invited members from neighboring Kasisi
village to join them in ensuring the arrest of illegal charcoal traders.
SUSTAINABILITY
Local governments are concerned about deteriorating natural resources, and see VLUPs as a way to
institutionalize abatement strategies for more sustainable management. Potential permanent
structures include establishing VLUPs, FMs and fire scouts under the village government structure.
Village governments report they actively enforce by-laws to manage the threats of agro-pastoralist
in-migration and the illegal harvesting of forest resources. FMs have remained motivated and
committed, despite the disappearance of incentives after the project ended in March 2014.21 Village governments and community members much appreciate JGI’s leadership of the VLUP
process. They also see JGI as the patron of the process, expressing a strong belief that, “Jane
Goodall needs to take care of her baby.” Villages that have begun collecting revenue have not
generally reinvested in forest management (like firebreaks, FMs or nursery attendants). When the
Norwegian-funded REDD+ project carried out a pilot benefit distribution, for example, Kirando
villagers told the team that village government invested all of the TSh 42 million it received in public
infrastructure, and set aside nothing to support forest management.22 On the other hand, in nearby
Ilagala, the village government set aside sections of degraded forest, each named, and have improved
them through regeneration, reportedly inspired by the pilot benefit distribution. At both the district
and village levels, people have clearly given thought to the relative advantages of fees over fines as a
source of long-term revenue.23 In Ilagala, Kazuramimba and Kirando, community members said
they would like further training in governance and a mechanism to generate funds to provide
incentives to people engaged in forest monitoring and management. The first two villages felt JGI
should continue to facilitate village-level training and, in particular, enhance the involvement of
women in forest management (see Annex D for details on villagers’ and other stakeholders’
perspectives). At the district level, a meeting organized by JGI in July 2014 focused on how the two regions will
sustain key elements of conservation and livelihoods. Representatives from the four district councils
agreed as partners:
20 Cf. Section IX, 84 (5) of the Forest Act of 2002, which specifies for a forest reserve that a guilty offender shall be
“liable to a fine … not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years ...”
21While all the FMs interviewed described their motivation in terms of contributions pro bono publico, they clearly value the
training they received and their on-going experience with new technologies and, as implied in the following paragraph,
may expect to benefit from future opportunities. Project staff noted that other factors include criteria for their initial
selection, recognition by village leaders and official visitors, and exemption from other “communal” service. 22 The evaluation team was informed that all villages prioritized community development projects. As part of the overall
benefit-sharing mechanism, however, 10 percent of the total funds available were provided for the JUWAMMA CBO
and the allocation for each village was based on performance with regard to NRM. 23 District councils are reportedly developing a district land use framework that will set aside areas for fee-based grazing,
which will create an alternative for herders now subject to fines for using forest reserve areas.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 12
 To establish inter-regional ecosystem coordination mechanisms;  That district councils should allocate budget resources to support the development of VLUPs;  To conduct periodic joint meetings among Tabora, Kigoma and Katavi regions to review
progress and challenges of threats to the ecosystem; and,  That district councils should write proposals to seek funds from other development partners.
SCALABILITY
VLUP coverage of 49 villages (of 52 targeted) indicates that a great deal of scaling has already
occurred. Forty-three LUPs have been approved by district councils and are pending approval by
the Ministry of Local Government. All Kigoma villages with forest habitat where chimpanzees
dwell have VLUPs. The project, however, did not target all the villages surrounding the large
expanse of miombo woodlands in the Masito-Ugalla ecosystem, and the high costs of the process, as
presently carried out, constrains spreading VLUPs to all villages.24 Within villages, signboards with
land use maps and environmental education have spread awareness of land use zones and
conservation themes, but most villagers do not engage significantly in the VLUP process. The desire and will to scale up VLUPs exists, but is seriously undermined by the capacity to
implement. The team, for example, was informed that the Mpanda Regional Commissioner has
issued a directive for all districts to develop VLUPs, but nothing has moved forward yet, reportedly
due to limited central and local government resources. Mpanda district council reported it has
allocated TSh 40 million in its fiscal year 2014/15 budget to develop VLUPs.
IR2: FOREST CONNECTIVITY ACHIEVED AND MAINTAINED
THROUGH COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Under the GMU Project, JGI has sought to extend its earlier experience with community-centered
participatory forest management: (a) To the creation and management of “an interlinked forest
corridor connecting Gombe National Park to other forest fragments to the north and east of the
park;” and, (b) To the management of the open-access and, in effect, unmanaged Masito-Ugalla
General Lands. A plan to establish two Local Authority Forest Reserves (LAFRs) on these lands
was endorsed by the district councils and neighbouring villages have justified their boundaries and
hope to initiate Joint Forest Management (JFM).
Building on the VLUM structure and experience at the village level, JGI created five CBOs with
representatives from selected villages surrounding the common areas to be managed. Pact/Tanzania
was intended to lead capacity building for these new institutions, but the organization was inactive
by the time of award. JGI called on former Pact staff, who had formed a local NGO (Development
Impact) to provide what was – in effect – intermittent, ad hoc support. JGI more recently joined
other partners to establish and support a steering committee that connects the four districts (at the
district level, a District Natural Resources Technical Committee helps coordinate stakeholders).
24 Based on experience thus far, one district created a detailed estimate of TSh 74 million to develop one LUP.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 13
RELEVANCE OF TARGETS
All district technical staff and community leaders in the Masito-Ugalla miombo woodland ecosystem
believe the targets were highly relevant, particularly for their focus on managing forests on general
lands. Regional and district officials and technical staff in the project area agree that the landscape- scale coverage of the project area (1,204,700 ha, hundreds of chimpanzees, 52 villages and over
300,000 people) is relevant, and that connectivity is crucial to holistically managing the area.
The development and operation of participatory forest management plans and creation of CBOs to
manage the landscape are equally relevant, and are ideal for measuring targets. Indicators for forest
connectivity results are: (a) The number of operating Participatory Forest Management Plans
(PFMP) developed; and, (b) The number of CBOs managing interconnected forests. The
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS), however, does not include clear criteria for assessing
either. Furthermore, the PIRS for the latter indicator changes it to the number of “operating CBOs’ forest management plans.” The only indicator for CBOs as institutions, then, is the IR4 indicator, “Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change issues,” which targets
159 institutions, ranging across villages, districts, government agencies, CBOs and fire management
crews under a very broad, unspecified range of criteria for improved capacity.
In the villages visited around the Gombe forest, no community leaders expressed interest in forest
connectivity beyond villages immediately bordering theirs. Forest areas of interest to them are
within their village boundaries, because they fall within their area of jurisdiction. Most community
leaders, some district technical staff, and all regional officials were most interested in the tangible
economic value of the forest as a source of revenue, rather than in conservation value per se. EFFECTIVENESS
The GMU Project established 36 VLUPs with concomitant PFMPs, surpassing a target of 33
PFMPs, in Kigoma district. Nineteen forest reserves are reported to have been established, with an
additional 14 PFMPs completing final steps at the Kigoma, Uvinza, Nsimbo and Mpanda district
councils. These are expected to be finalized soon with support from the follow-on project. Mpanda
district sought to establish two PFMPs in 2011 and four in 2012, but was unable to do so.
Results supporting forest connectivity in the general lands of Masito-Ugalla and the village lands
around Gombe have been limited mainly to awareness creation. Creation of CBOs and PFMPs is
still in process. PFMP development was part of the village-level VLUP process that established
plans approved by their respective district councils. CBOs are still nascent, and the general
consensus among stakeholders interviewed is that their weakness is due to limited training before
and after their creation. Other reasons appear to be their limited experience in implementing
management plans, limited financial support, and the generally weak relationships of CBOs and,
often, VLUMs within the existing village and district government structure.
Forest connectivity is beginning to emerge through natural forest regeneration in degraded areas at
higher elevations, particularly around Gombe forest, where VLUPs have limited extraction from
forest lands in the villages neighboring the park, enabling degraded vegetation to naturally
regenerate. Under its general management plan, Gombe National Park manages funds for social
responsibility initiatives to engage neighboring communities. The park’s involvement with villages is
limited to providing financial support for village infrastructure. Little has been done to engage these
neighboring communities in management to improve connectivity between the park and village
forest areas. The Chief Park Warden seems open to engaging district and village governments when
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 14
revising its general plan; this would offer an opportunity to develop management-oriented initiatives
for consideration by the park’s central decision-making bodies.
The miombo woodlands of Masito-Ugalla are still under pressure, despite village and district efforts
to manage access to government-owned general lands. The politicization of initiatives to limit
access (e.g., by politicians seeking support by promising access or colluding with economic interests)
effectively undermine the ability of FMs and VEO to enforce bylaws.
Community-based forest management (CBFM) through inter-village CBOs like Jumuiya ya Uhifadhi
wa Misitu ya Masito, Tongwe na Ugalla (JUMMATU) shows an emerging, shared understanding
across villages. The team saw no evidence, however, of active collaboration between districts or on￾the-ground management activities with villagers and other stakeholders. In Masito-Ugalla, even
collaboration across villages is weak. The six-village CBO, JUMMATU, is split into JUMMATU A
and JUMMATU B, each composed of three villages. The split has limited cohesion in and between
villages and forest monitoring committees in enforcing forest monitoring in their respective villages.
SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY
The emerging “ownership” of CBFM across villages shows potential. Sustainability depends on its
integration into existing governance structures. As noted above, the team observed that villagers
from two villages visited where the forest management plan was not completed (Vikonge and
Bugwe) are ready to re-engage with JGI. They report that having observed the role of VLUPs in
other villages, and see value in using VLUPs to manage use in their areas of jurisdiction.
While villager engagement under both TACARE and the GMU Project was not deep, and while
most villagers have little sense of ownership of LUP initiatives, among village leaders there is
clearly: (a) Interest in clarifying (and perhaps securing) management rights to some resources on the
general lands in the Masito-Ugalla; and, (b) Understanding in the villages of both the Gombe and
Masito-Ugalla landscapes and the benefits of managing access to forest areas that have heretofore
had open access. Regeneration in degraded forest areas is starting in the higher elevation around
Gombe forest, supported by by-law monitoring and enforcement. Regeneration could begin in the
rest of the miombo woodland if extractive pressure is similarly controlled. JGI’s study on drivers
noted the importance of protecting older seed trees, which had been largely lost in the Gombe
forest and are still under great pressure for timber and charcoal in the miombo woodlands. The
director of the Ugalla Primate Project (UPP) observed that, unlike in Gombe, there are still areas of
intact riverine forest, but such areas can disappear “almost overnight,” as they are best for
agriculture.
The forming CBOs like JUMMATU and Jumuiya ya Kuhifadhi Misitu ya Mkuti, Ntanda na
Ngogomyi (JUMUNTANGO) to manage CBFMs is the start to a platform for cross-village dialogue
on conservation among village leaders. These structures have the potential to manage trans-village
boundary conservation challenges but, to date, are still dependent on project resources. CBO
leaders, however, express confidence and commitment to sustain their efforts in conservation.
The inter-district steering committee has begun to meet with support from JGI and other partners.
One stakeholder noted, “The structure is a bit weak… [and] they still depend 100 percent on…
[NGO and other support] to call for a meeting, even to prepare the agendas…” They are,
nonetheless, beginning to clearly understand roles and responsibilities. “They’re the government,
which is ultimately responsible…If these guys aren’t connected, these pressures will continue.”
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 15
IR3: MAJOR DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION IDENTIFIED AND
MITIGATED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The GMU Project carried out surveys and analyzed remotely-sensed and other geospatial data to
identify and analyze drivers of deforestation, including salt mining, tobacco drying and charcoal
extraction. The project reviewed strategies developed by CAP partners for reducing illegal and
unsustainable extraction of forest resources and decreasing demand for charcoal and fuel wood.
Using 1972-2009 satellite images, JGI studied rates of consumption by residential and industrial
users, and identified geographic, logistic and use parameters. Working with district officers, high- volume users, CBOs and villages, the GMU Project facilitated the development of guidelines and
forest resource harvesting plans that set limits for acceptable harvesting levels. Ultimately, the GMU
Project prioritized fire management (see IR4), woodlots and fuel-efficient stoves because of their
direct impact on reducing pressure on natural forests and improving human health by minimizing
exposure to pollutants and related respiratory diseases. Woodlots and fuel-efficient stoves were also
seen to free up time, especially for women, for health, education and income-generating activities.
RELEVANCE OFTARGETS
The GMU Project’s 2010 assessment of deforestation drivers conducted to inform actions under
IR3 identified “indiscriminate cutting of forests” as the most important driver of ecosystem change,
followed by (in descending order of importance) wildfires, shifting agriculture and settlements,
pastoralism, charcoal making, wildlife poaching, illegal harvesting of timber, and influx of refugees
and other immigrants.25 The project used five indicators (see Table 1) to measure the mitigation of
deforestation drivers, based on stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the impacts of
climatic changes,26 households implementing energy efficiency measures,27 households with pure
(i.e., not intercropped with agricultural crops) woodlots,28 climate change vulnerability assessments
conducted,29 and a study on major “drivers” of deforestation.30 By the end of the project, JGI
reportedly surpassed targets for all five indicators.
Issues regarding the first three indicators include lack of a defined denominator to give a sense of
coverage, lack of breakdown by district to monitor progress, and lack of specification of the number
of livelihood and conservation studies, which might have balanced coverage of these components. EFFECTIVENESS INACHIEVING INTENDED OR EXPECTED OUTCOMES
Deforestation remains a major threat to forest conservation, and has not yet been adequately
mitigated. Although districts have initiated road blocks and joint patrols, felling trees is still very
25 H.V.M. Lyaruu (2010), Assessment of Drivers of Deforestation in the Gombe Masito Ugalla Landscape, p. 21. 26 The PMP notes the “precise definition” as follows: “The indicator will communicate farmers who are able to
implement risk reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change, adjusting farming practices like soil
management, vetiver planting, contour farming to better cope with stress as a result of USG support.”
27 “Households that are knowledgeable on FES and are using them every day as a result of USG support.”
28 No. of targeted households that have land(s) covering at least 0.5 acres dedicated to trees, not mixed with other crops. 29Vulnerability assessments include participatory identification of priority climate-sensitive sectors, livelihoods or
systems, and of priority populations and regions; assessment of anticipated climate and non-climate stresses; estimate of
potential impacts; assessment of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the system to climate change stress
30 Major factors influencing forest degradation, as identified by the study.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 16
common in the Masito-Ugalla landscape to clear farmland, make charcoal, use in construction, and – on an industrial basis – as a source of fuel wood to dry salt and cure tobacco. Some tree harvesting
has been licensed, with extraction reportedly controlled by the harvesting plan. Woodlots have not
met the huge demand for timber and fuel wood. Remarking that exotic species introduced by a
much earlier project had completely failed to survive, the GMU Project’s assessment of
deforestation drivers recommended that “people should be advised to use suitable indigenous
species of their choice in their woodlots,”
31 which led the project to encourage communities to raise
tree species of their choices, while providing technical guidance regarding the impacts of those
species. Controls for checking the transportation of charcoal and logs have reportedly been
strengthened. FMs identify and report deforestation, which has led to actions by village and district
governments, including arresting offenders and establishing checkpoints on major routes. In three
of the 12 villages visited, the team heard reports of illegally harvested forest resources that
implicated corrupt village leadership.
The fuel-efficient stoves (FES) introduced have not been adopted uniformly in all communities;
some homes have abandoned them. Failure to adopt FESs was reportedly due to the apparent
abundance of fuel wood in some rural areas, while abandonment was reported to be due
incompatible fuel wood in the locality. Other limiting features noted by some users were the need
to use different burners for larger and smaller pots, and limited heat control.
In JGI’s study of drivers, the increasing demand for fuel wood and charcoal has been underscored
as a serious threat to conservation efforts, “Considering huge charcoal demand by urban dwellers
due to rocketing prices of kerosene and liquid petroleum gas, deforestation for charcoal production
will continue unabated if alternative sources of affordable energy are not sought, and this will
seriously impact forest conservation initiatives in the region.”
32 Use of alternative energy like biogas
was also recommended; the GMU Project supported pilot biogas digesters using domestic and farm
residues at Kalinzi village, with reportedly promising results. SUSTAINABILITY
The drivers study recommended that districts should, “Conserve the remaining forest patches by
setting aside conservation budget at district level, to embark on massive afforestation and re- forestation campaigns that will involve fast growing exotic and indigenous species in individual
woodlots to cater for fuel wood demand.”
33 Development of VLUPs has effectively checked
deforestation activities. The challenge remains in scaling up LUPs, due to the high costs associated
with the current LUP process. Fuel-efficient stoves are promising mainly in areas facing fuel wood
shortages (high prices) and increasing distance to sources of supply. Woodlots using traditional
species of trees offer a promising alternative, sustainable source of fuel wood for charcoal.
The tobacco industry’s fuel wood needs are also a challenge. Nsimbo district officials informed the
team that districts are addressing the problem indirectly by encouraging tobacco farmers to switch to
new economic activities like beekeeping and growing sunflowers, peanuts and sesame. Large-scale
use of fuel wood to evaporate salt at Uvinza, as noted above with regard to the mortality of exotic
31 H.V.M. Lyaruu (2010), op.cit, pp. 2-3. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., p. 3
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 17
species, and cure tobacco remains an ongoing challenge. The team was informed that GoT has told
the salt industry to switch to alternative energy, including solar and coal, by the end of 2015.
SCALABILITY
Increasing demand for wood for domestic and industrial use, and the time needed for trees to
mature for those purposes, challenges rapid scale-up. Stoves fueled by wood from woodlots planted
with indigenous species holds future promise, especially for domestic use. The model is low-tech, low-cost, and does – indeed – reduce the amount of fuel needed. Adapting the technology to fit
local conditions (e.g., availability of clay soil and types of fuel wood) is important to scaling up.
IR4: CAPACITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO MANAGE FOREST FIRES
INCREASED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The GMU Project prioritized fire management because of the prevalence of uncontrolled wildfires
throughout the project area. It began with community education and awareness, and built on earlier
success with regeneration in areas (initially, the Kitwe Forest Demonstration Area) where fire had
been controlled. Working with village leaders, JGI helped form volunteer firefighting teams who
helped carry out patrols, make fire breaks, and introduce early burning as fire management measures.
RELEVANCE OFTARGETS
District and village leaders find the fire management activity relevant, because it complements
district authority efforts to manage fires in their areas of jurisdiction. The four indicators (see Table
1) are relevant to community-level capacity to manage forest fires. As noted in IR2, above, the
number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change is too broad to be useful in
assessing capacity. The three IR5 indicators regarding monitors and patrols are also relevant.
Issues with the indicators include the fact that measuring the percentage of fire reduction in targeted
villages using remote sensing data could be misleading, because fire incidents may be high-intensity, leading to higher mortality of plants and other life forms, but fewer in number. Similarly,
documenting fire behavior and its associated damage could tell more about the effect of fire on the
landscape than remotely sensed data and fire sighting could indicate.34
EFFECTIVENESS
The project targeted 159 institutions whose capacity to manage climate change issues (including
fires) was expected to improve with project support. One hundred fifteen of the 159 were covered. The project, similarly, targeted 15 villages to have fire management plans; it reached 16. Increased
production of mushrooms, gathered for food and sale during the rainy season, is the single most
widely-cited result of controlling fires in the general land forests.
Firebreaks are reportedly in active use and are monitored on village lands. The incidence of forest
fires has dropped 29 percent. Lack of firebreaks on general land is attributed to lack of ownership
of the forests and of financial resources to support village efforts to manage fires in their
34 While remotely sensed imagery may distinguish impacts on, for example, pine forests, which are highly flammable,
detecting changes in miombo woodlands would be impossible at 30M resolution, and difficult even with 3M resolution.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 18
neighboring areas of jurisdiction. JGI has been exploring prescribed or controlled fires as an
appropriate tool to manage wildfires where fire breaks seem impractical. The team observed that
uncontrolled fires continue to burn throughout the area. Some fires are accidental (e.g., an on-farm
fire goes out of control and crosses into a forested area); others are a result of arson.
All fire management group members who were interviewed said they received relevant training.
Informants said that women were not really involved, because religious and cultural inclinations
make them – particularly married ones – shoulder most household-related activities, leaving little or
no room for public ones. In one village, jealousy was cited as a barrier to married women’s
participation in patrols. FMs, forest patrols and firefighting crews are few compared to the areas to
be managed. Monitors work without basic gear like boots, helmets, raincoats, fireproof jackets, fire
beaters and transportation. District and village forest patrols are generally carried out ad hoc. Fifty-seven forest scouts were targeted for training; 134 were actually trained. Some trainees
reportedly dropped out for reasons like illness, age and out-migration from the village. Forty-nine
villages conducted forest patrols, but they were not generally conducted on a regular basis. Village￾level data on the patrols is provided in Annex D.
SUSTAINABILITYAND SCALABILITY
The evaluation team met with fire management teams in six of the 12 villages. All appeared
committed and, although the project ended in March 2014, reported that they continued to carry out
patrols after the project’s financial incentives ended (see also IR1, footnote 19).
IR5: CAPACITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES TO
MONITOR ILLEGAL EXTRACTION OF FOREST RESOURCES
INCREASED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The GMU Project sought to build capacity of CBOs and local governments at the village and district
levels to monitor illegal extraction of forest resources on general lands, and to build JGI’s capacity to
monitor the forest using the global positioning system (GPS) and other remote sensing technologies.
Each of the 49 LUPs includes and all four districts have developed by-laws, i.e., rules governing land
and resource usage. The GMU Project enhanced the capacity of local governments to monitor
illegal extraction by establishing a new cadre of FMs and scouts at the community level. Village
governments selected participants, who were then trained for six weeks at Pasiansi Forestry Training
Institute in Mwanza. After training, the project provided trainees with GPS units, GPS-enabled
Android smartphones, and tablets to monitor illegal activities in village forests. FMs have begun
using Open Data Kit (ODK) to manage data collection and aggregation. Data collected was
reported to be shared with village government for immediate action and uploaded monthly to a
server at the JGI office in Kigoma. JGI, in turn, periodically communicates that information to the
respective district councils for action and their records. Additional details on the new monitoring
tools are provided in Annex K: Project Pictures.
RELEVANCE OF TARGETS
The indicators and targets (in parentheses) for project monitoring include the number of forest
patrols conducted by district patrol teams (8), number of villages that carry out regular patrols (52)
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 19
and number of forest monitors/scouts trained (57). By project end, in March 2014, the targets
achieved were reported to be three district team patrols35, 49 villages and 65 trainees. The village
and district patrol achievements appear to be too few for effective forest monitoring, especially
considering the targets cover a four-year project period. Aside from the number of patrols, an
annual breakdown by district and village would also be desirable for monitoring purposes.
EFFECTIVENESS
The GMU Project has created and trained a new cadre of FMs at the community level. FMs and
scouts appear to be highly committed, despite a very modest monthly allowance of TSh 40,000 (less
than US $25) and minimal support gear, which includes tablets and GPS equipment, bicycles, tents
and slashing blades. FMs cited the training they received as an incentive, which has strengthened
this new group. The GPS and tablets provided for reporting have potential, but are not yet well
linked to the districts, wards or – especially – villages, where law enforcement actually takes place.
Reporting to village government is inconsistent across villages. In addition to the JGI office, a new
uploading station in Mpanda is reportedly being established; JGI plans to strengthen access to
intelligence such as that available from Global Forest Watch. Access to power remains a challenge
that JGI plans to address on a village-by-village basis, including the use of solar charging stations as
a business. A total of 65 FMs and scouts have been trained, although they remain few, compared to
the amount of forestland to be monitored. Bicycles are inadequate to cover those distances, which,
in some villages, require many hours of travel.
SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY
The new cadre of FMs is not yet integrated into village and district structures; villagers often
described them as working for JGI. Sustainability depends on the local government demonstrating
its appreciation for services rendered, including integrating them into the village government
structure,36 supporting them with training, refresher training and equipment, and providing
supervision. Village governments have already begun to collect fines; some could be used for FM
support. The above-noted case of Katambike demonstrates the potential for maintaining forest
monitoring using forest fees over fines. The greatest threat to sustainability, however, is weak
enforcement by the village government which was reported as challenging in some villages. FMs
mentioned failure to apprehend criminals, release of arrested criminals and impounded goods, and
collusion of village leaders with illegal users of forest resources as demoralizing factors. Fines
imposed by village governments based on their by-laws were reduced on some occasions by district
magistrates due to a perceived conflict between the principle law and village by-laws regarding fine
limits. FMs and others noted that the reduced fines were too small to deter illegal logging. Scaling up forest monitoring would require training and refresher training, properly equipping more
FMs, and providing modest monthly allowances and technical supervision. Forest fees could be a
sustainable way to gradually scale FM activities, and could be expanded based on additional
resources from improved forest management, district and village governments and other
development partners.
35 See Annex D.4 for an illustration of the much larger number of village patrols. 36 Project staff noted that, while full integration may require amending the local government law [1982], village councils
have general authority to undertake any tasks to ensure well-being.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 20
IR6: ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
ARE PROMOTED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Agriculture remains the main occupation for rural
communities in the program area. CAPs identified the
conversion of forests for agriculture as a major threat to
biodiversity in the landscape. The GMU Project aimed to
promote climate-smart agricultural practices, like agro- forestry, to improve soil fertility and increase crop yield, mulching to manage soil moisture,
intercropping and crop rotation, and incorporating fast-growing fruit and other tree species. JGI
planned to work with farmers to stop environmentally destructive shifting cultivation and bush- burning practices. Demonstration farms were established to educate farmers on improved farming
practices like using contours on hillsides. JGI also planned to continue working with coffee farmers
to improve yield and expand training on post-harvest handling, processing and storage. JGI
supported the Kanyovu Coffee Cooperative through training in coffee agroforestry and building a
laboratory that enables multiple coffee farmers to bring the highest-quality goods to market.
RELEVANCE OFTARGETS
The targets for environmentally friendly agricultural practices are relevant to the beneficiaries, but
are not directly linked to specific activities. The distribution of targets across groups implementing
these activities is not clear. With the exception of coffee, there is no functional management
information system, making it very difficult to verify reported numbers. Despite the data quality
assessment, indicators do not have denominators to permit accounting for coverage. Project participants at the district and village levels generally view the introduction of tree nurseries
as relevant. In the three villages, nurseries are subsidized by JGI, and plants are distributed free of
charge. Attendants were paid to take care of the seedlings until ready for distribution to villagers for
planting. Other nurseries were run by individuals who were not paid, but were given free seeds.
The project helped local residents establish tree nurseries and woodlots that produce trees with
specific uses for food, medicine, timber and agro-forestry. By 2014, the program had helped
establish 464 woodlots and 77 tree farms in 35 villages.
EFFECTIVENESS
Reception of tree nurseries by the project was mixed. JGI changed its approach and now buys from
private nurseries (whose operators have been provided training and support), which have been more
effective than community ones. In Kirando and Ilagala villages, a tree nursery owner sells seedling at
TSh 1,000 each and invests his income in educating his children. In Kazuramimba, some people
have begun conserving their own woodlots in expectation, they said, of REDD+ benefits (see text
box, below). The team was not able to observe the project’s agroforestry options for coffee. Most
coffee seen was planted in relatively full sun or under light shade from banana.
SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY
JGI introduced contour farming to arrest soil erosion on hillsides, but its adoption has been limited.
Specific interventions do not appear to have been developed as entry points into specific farming
systems but, rather, as off-the-shelf responses to general problems. The team saw one pineapple
farmer in Kalinzi using hillside contours to control erosion. The team, however, observed only a few
“We heard of financial benefits villages
which were experimenting REDD+
received through the REDD+ project,
some of us started conserving woodlots, you
never know, we may benefit as well.”
- Kazuramimba villagers
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 21
patches of vetiver grass contour farming. In Mwamgongo, vetiver contour farming was not
extended beyond a demonstration plot established with a JGI subsidy.
IR7: INCOME FROM ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
ENTERPRISES IN PROJECT AREA DEVELOPED AND DIVERSIFIED
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The GMU Project’s original approach continued earlier efforts that focused on poverty reduction:
“increasing local incomes as a primary strategy for reducing the impact…on the landscape.” The
agreement document identified four specific initiatives – coffee, honey, woodlots, and ecotourism –
and “business diversification through…village level micro-credit organizations known as SACCOS
(Savings and Credit Cooperative Society). Creation of small businesses not only leads to additional
sources of income, but reduces dependency on natural resources, ultimately leading to populations
investing in improved conservation practices.”37 Lack of access to capital to start a small business is
a significant challenge for rural populations in the region. In a 2011 project study, 97 percent of
respondents identified start-up capital as their main need to set up a small business.38 JGI worked
directly with Twitunge, an umbrella SACCOS, to oversee micro-credit in the target villages and to
improve training. JGI’s selection of livelihood opportunities appears to have been opportunistic,
building on existing livelihood activities, an approach it explained at one point as “jumping on the
moving train.”
RELEVANCE OFTARGETS
Three indicators with targets were used to monitor progress on this aspect of the project – number
of persons with increased income from environmentally friendly enterprises,39 number of active
community-based microfinance associations,40 and dollar value generated via environmentally
friendly enterprises.41 As noted for other IRs, targets have limited relevance without a denominator.
The indicators have not been used to assess progress, either as a percentage increase from a baseline,
or by specifying income and breakdown across villages, groups and/or individuals. With the
exception of coffee, there are no clear data sources, making it difficult to verify reported numbers.
EFFECTIVENESS
Coffee has been a successful value chain effort that has built on the strengths of private sector
collaboration. Coffee growers appear to demonstrate a remarkable and important change in attitude – a shared appreciation of the value of quality in market relationships. Coffee income has increased
37 The Jane Goodall Institute (2009), op. cit. 38 Green Tanzania Environmental Consultants, Ltd. (2011), Socio-Economic Study Of Communities Living in the
Corridor Area of Gombe Masito Ugalla Ecosystem Final Report, May 2011, p. 28. 39 The PIRS notes that economic benefits include: increased household income, average increase in income per
household, number of new enterprises developed (including but not limited to fisheries, sustainable tourism,
forestry/agro-forestry, sustainable agriculture, micro-enterprise etc.), economic benefits from ecosystem services, etc.
Economic benefits may be based on actual cash transactions or other economic values of natural resources. 40 Number of micro-finance groups that have undergone special training in microfinance, have a constitution, have a
revolving fund and lend money to members. It is computed as the total number of groups that accrue benefits from
sustainably investing in natural resources. 41 Although the PMP’s “precise definition” in the PIRS is “Total combined annual income generated by NRM related
enterprises in project area” the values reported (see Table 1) are limited to CBO income directly from the forests. This
limited the project’s ability to assess and understand household-level benefits from environmentally-friendly enterprises.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 22
significantly through support for improved quality and marketing, including direct, hands-on
learning of quality control by individual farmers through organized groups, and field visits to
successful coffee marketing areas. Coffee appears to have additional untapped potential for
conservation-oriented productivity, including biodiversity-friendly, shade-grown coffee and
environmental and social certification. The dry mill operator said that certification was not pursued
due to costs, and that most certification in Tanzania is supported by donors. Annex D contains
more detail on coffee activities. With the exception of coffee and private woodlots, the project’s livelihood activities have not
attracted villagers to invest in them. In most villages visited, livelihood and production interventions
have not yielded benefits (e.g., ecotourism in Mwamgongo, Kigalye and Kalinzi, “improved”
beekeeping in Bugwe, Vikonge and Kazuramimba, and subsidized, community-based nurseries in
Ilagala, Kalinzi and Bubango). In general, livelihood interventions:  Have not built on local knowledge; e.g., in Vikonge, Kazuramimba, and Kasuku, beekeeping
equipment was given to new groups, most of whose members had no prior experience with bees.  Are not based on in-depth value chain analyses.  Have not significantly strengthened market relationships with value chain actors.  Have had limited diversity of experimentation (e.g., a district officer suggested JGI explore
opportunities in horticulture linked with water source protection. While productivity
interventions for oil palm were tried, JGI was not able to identify cost-effective opportunities for
improving processing of oil).  Have been supported mainly by “one-off” training. Support has not been sufficiently intensive,
guidance on good practices has not been rigorous and, apart from coffee, there has been little or
no mentoring or coaching for market relationship building.
Beekeeping projects have not generated significant income in the villages visited, and the groups
interviewed were not linked to markets. Some group members received a one-day training. Support
visits from either JGI or district officers have been infrequent. While beekeeping has a political
champion in Mpanda, quality and marketing still challenge most villages. JGI has highlighted the
need for improved honey extraction techniques, packaging, labeling and marketing.
JGI developed ecotourism as an add-on to existing tourism activities at Gombe National Park,
which is world famous for its chimpanzees. Local communities were expected to gain by selling
traditional dishes, performing traditional dances, and selling coffee. JGI introduced ecotourism ideas
to the village government, held a one-day sensitization meeting for community leaders, and
organized tour guide training and a pilot event at a center in Kalinzi. Neither of the two villages
visited that offered ecotourism activities (Mwamgongo and Kalinzi) have attracted tourists.
Additional details can be found in Annex D. After four years of JGI support, Twitunge SACCOS, an umbrella cooperative, has developed the
financial and technical capacity to support and manage member SACCOSs. However, SACCOSs
are under-supervised, and most members have not realized significant benefits. Further detail on
these activities and woodlots are shown in Annex D. Woodlots are also described above.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 23
SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY
Within villages, there has been little “scaling out” beyond the small groups of persons directly
trained or supported by the project. Current visitation levels at Gombe National Park are not
sufficient to support community-based tourism. While the cooperatives could expand to include
more of the area’s coffee farmers, additional areas agro-ecologically suitable for coffee are limited.
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND WRAP-AROUND ACTIVITIES
GENDER
With the exception of FES (stoves) and health interventions, participation of women in decision- making and implementation of project-supported activities at the village level is not significant
compared to men. Women led home-based cared activities under the HIV/AIDS component and
led reproductive education activities as community-based distributing agents (CBDA) under the
USAID-funded family planning project, which was integrated with JGI’s NRM activities. Under the
SACCOSs, a number of women were reportedly trained as treasurers, and later served in similar
roles under government programs like the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF). Planted only
recently, woodlots observed by the team have yet to benefit women. The team observed gender inequity in the field, as noted in JGI’s assessment documents. One
indicator of the imbalance is the fact that less than 30 percent of informants at the community level
and 20 percent of district officials met were women (see Table 3 in Section II). The VEO of one of
the 12 villages and the District Land and Natural Resources Officers (DLNRO) in two districts were
women. In meetings at all levels, women generally spoke late in the meeting and, often, only after
specific invitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
While difficult to attribute with certainty to the project period, the team found that youth, school
teachers and village leaders consistently and clearly communicated conservation messages and said
that they owed their greater understanding of environmental issues to JGI’s education programs.
Under GMU, JGI’s long-established (1991) Roots and Shoots program was broadened to include
“life skills” education for thousands of students. In 2012, JGI carried out surveys on life skills
(covering 35 schools) and assessing Roots and Shoots clubs’ performance (covering 19 schools).
The surveys showed that life skills education had contributed to lower pregnancy and drug use, and
that participation in Roots and Shoots clubs had declined. Less than a third of the clubs had
initiated new environmental projects.
Environmental education is also part of many of the GMU Project’s training courses, including
training for CBO members in land and forestry policy, and forest management for nearly 500
VLUM and village council members in participatory forest management. Officials in Mpanda,
Nsimbo and Kigoma stressed the need to include magistrates in the training, as their interpretation
of by-laws and national laws often failed to support natural resource management.
HIV/AIDS
Capacity created under TACARE and supported under the GMU Project continues in the village
through committed community-based healthcare workers with limited project support. JGI
continues to attract support from health-oriented partners not funded by USAID or the project.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 24
TRAINING
As shown in Annex D, the GMU Project conducted over 50 trainings over the life of the project.
Over a quarter were carried out by JGI’s district partners. Most training was conducted as a “one- off,” but was sometimes an intensive, multi-day activity. Courses generally used and/or adapted
generic materials developed by other institutions. With the exception of coffee, technical training
was not generally iterative, hands-on or “discovery learning” based (see Annex F for details).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 25
CONCLUSIONS
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The GMU Project’s objectives align precisely with the two most important areas of opportunity: (a)
Strengthening emerging natural resource governance at the village and district levels via the VLUP
process; and (b) Building on lessons learned and best practices derived from a few promising
livelihood activities.
Project interventions that show the most potential for continuing after project support ends are
those for which local leaders and community members are beginning to see tangible benefit. The
most promising of these are local governments’ application of VLUPs’ clear boundaries and by-laws,
which contribute to forest regeneration and conflict management; private nurseries and woodlots;
quality control in coffee processing; and the incipient use of fees for resource uses. The most
significant factor undermining sustainability is a legacy of long-standing dependency relationships
introduced by past projects and other actors. Learning what is possible in each village requires that
locally active stakeholders identify their interests, skills and knowledge before they learn by doing.
Widespread use of local discovery requires that the GMU Project also promotes sharing learning.
The project’s principal challenge over the next four years is to transition from an externally donor- driven project to locally-led and locally-owned initiatives that sustain themselves and expand. Effective contribution to this transition will depend on balancing three themes: (1) Self-reliant
participation; (2) Integrating livelihood and conservation at community and household levels; and (3)
Introducing new ideas and learning from experience in trying them out. Clarifying the principles that underlie these themes can improve the conception and identification of
both problems and opportunities, and the design of sound actions and approaches to address them.
Considering the extent of change required, ensuring an environment for innovation (which naturally
will be accompanied by some failures) – while managing risks – is an important challenge. The next
three sections present conclusions related to ecosystems and natural resources (nature), economic
drivers and livelihood options (wealth), and natural resource governance (power).
CONCLUSIONS ON NATURE
The local land use planning process that the GMU Project supported – enabled by national policy
and well aligned with the interests of district technical officers – has been the project’s most
effective contribution to improving natural resource management and, thereby, conserving
biodiversity and protecting and restoring wildlife habitat. The regeneration of natural forest in a few
communities surrounding Gombe National Park is the most tangible and striking impact of JGI’s
efforts through the GMU Project and its predecessors. Land use planning’s contribution to
managing access and clarifying use rights and responsibilities, nonetheless, has the potential for even
bigger impacts in the much larger Gombe-Masito ecosystem, with its many chimpanzees.
In general, LUPs have identified conservation values, partitioned acceptable uses, and set limits
clearly enough to enable stakeholders to address the growing pressures on these lands and guide the
introduction of improved production technology. Perhaps more significantly, local commitment to
managing and protecting the forest appears to have been strengthened most strongly not by income
“alternatives,” e.g., to forest-based livelihood activities or activities based on conversion of forest
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 26
lands, but by the perception that management can result in tangible benefits from the forest itself –
the Gombe forestlands and the miombo woodlands. When not guided by ecological principles, any
livelihood opportunity may present risks, as amply demonstrated by the very activities that have
impacted and/or continue to threaten these forests (e.g., farming too close to water sources, converting riverine habitat for oil palm cultivation, cultivating pineapple on hillside slopes,
producing maize on newly felled land, and charcoal production). Continued strengthening of VLUP
management structures and processes will enable the follow-on program to test offtake and
livelihood alternatives while protecting the ecological functions and services – and conservation
values – of these forests. In this regard, the GMU Project’s biological monitoring has been
strengthened at the overall project level, but has not become part of village-level decision making.
CONCLUSIONS ON WEALTH
The coffee activity’s focus on markets has been effective in improving product quality and producer
experience with the value chain. Market-informed, hands-on learning and practice are important
elements of its success. Producers showed a remarkable change in attitude – a shared appreciation
of the value of quality, driven by modest price differentials made possible through technical support
on specific parameters. While coffee is not appropriate for most of the project area, many of the
positive lessons learned are widely applicable to other enterprises. In general, the GMU Project has not helped producers develop effective relationships with other
producers or buyers. With the exception of coffee, producers have yet to understand the dynamics
of the criteria that buyers consider important – including volumes, timing and quality, as well as
price. The project has sought to establish group enterprises, but though producer associations may
be important when dealing with buyers, group enterprises are less likely to succeed.
Although the GMU Project sought to add value to existing livelihood activities (e.g., beekeeping and
coffee farming), its support for beekeeping often went to newly formed groups, most of whose
members had limited or no experience in keeping bees. As a service-based (rather than product- based) alternative, ecotourism will require even closer collaboration with and coaching from a
private operator that has practical understanding of the market and a commitment to local
communities than would agricultural livelihood opportunities. The GMU Project has not yet developed an effective extension or technical support environment
for livelihood learning and adaptation. Capacity building for enterprise development, in particular,
requires much closer accompaniment and support. In-depth analysis related to resource use, value
added, markets, and other parameters affecting enterprise success has not been carried out.
Nonetheless, the project’s 2011 and 2014 socio-economic studies and the 2010 assessment of
deforestation drivers provide an initial base and confirm the team’s observations (see also Annex G,
Project Pictures) of the significance of livestock, shifting cultivation, charcoal, and timber in the
local economy. Addressing the challenges of developing environmentally friendly livelihood
opportunities will require fully integrating a value chain perspective into JGI’s strategic action
planning and day-to-day field-level support. Indicators for livelihoods were reported in the aggregate. The team found no evidence of an attempt
to analyze impacts at the household level, where most decisions are made. The GMU Project has
not yet succeeded in developing a culture of record-keeping at the enterprise level.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 27
CONCLUSIONS ON POWER
The GMU Project developed foundations for the supportive governance required to enable, sustain
and scale up livelihood activities/enterprises. These include village-level by-laws governing access to
resources and tenure rights.
Good governance and performance complement each other. Where village governments have been
stable and supportive, villagers have completed VLUPs and moved toward implementation. VLUP
establishment of by-laws, in turn, has begun to contribute to good governance. Implementation of VLUPs offers a promising and lasting resolution of deforestation and conflict
related to agro-pastoralism. Nonetheless, capacity to implement land use plans is still limited.
Constraints to continued development and implementation include:  Imperfect harmonization of by-laws with national law, and incomplete by-laws in some villages;  Limited capacity of villagers to hold their village governments or district technical personnel
accountable for the implementation of key aspects of enforcement when larger interests are at
stake. VLUMs do not provide an adequate structure for harmonizing interests where outside
(but locally active) stakeholders are involved, especially when district commissioners lack the will
to support enforcement, or in cases where resource use decisions at the village level have become
politicized. Training in rights and obligations, which began under the GMU Project and is
planned to increase under the follow-on project, is an appropriate initial step forward.  The high costs of the district councils’ present model for developing LUPs, much of which are
per diem and related allowances for those involved in the planning. CONCLUSIONS ON THE ADAPTIVE, HOLISTIC APPROACH
The GMU Project’s two CAPs did not explore the dynamics of economic drivers in sufficient depth
to prioritize livelihood responses and explore investment options. The above-noted governance capacity limitations are still significant. Nonetheless, the project has
played a significant role in the critical interface between the “top-down” policies, laws, and
guidelines that seek to improve conservation, natural resource management, and livelihood
opportunities and the “bottom-up” development of capacity among those people whose lives are
most intimately connected with the landscapes and resources to be managed. The project has
strengthened capacity through relationship building, particularly regarding the respective roles of
villages and district governments and, to some degree, relationships within villages between technical
committees and local non-governmental groups and village government. In applying guidelines and
corresponding principles and practices to specific situations in the Gombe and Masito-Ugalla
ecosystems, JGI, its partners, and the district teams helped people from more than 50 villages take
new ideas and skills and use them to address their diverse interests more sustainably.
However, the GMU Project appears to have made only limited use of basic ways of enhancing
learning and practice to inform project implementation. Examples include actively encouraging
innovation, facilitating the sharing of ideas and experience, and rigorous analysis of results and
lessons learned through monitoring. In endeavoring to support land use planning across 49
communities, the GMU Project spread itself thinly, with the unfortunate consequence of inadequate
time and attention being given to adaptive management (helping stakeholders reflect and build on
their experience). While the project has identified some development hypotheses, it has not tested
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 28
them. It has not created many small-scale, low-cost experiments/pilots for livelihood interventions. There has been little diversity of experimentation, and lessons learned have not been systematically
taken into account. Meetings do not appear to have stimulated much cross-project or cross￾institution learning, and while relationships have been strengthened, truly collaborative partnerships
have been few.
The project’s innovative use of information technologies for natural resource management has great
potential. While it has begun to be seen at the district and project levels, village governments and
VLUMs have not yet taken up these technologies to regularly inform their decision making. The
GMU Project uses data it collects mainly for reporting, rather than for management. Limitations
that affect implementation of the design include the lack of a functioning, integrated electronic
management information system, and no effective indicators to monitor governance.
CONCLUSIONS ON OWNERSHIP (INCLUDING GENDER AND
SOCIAL INCLUSION)
The approach to preparing LUPs in a large number of villages across a vast and diverse landscape
did not contribute significantly to effective participation or long-term ownership and capacity
building. A sense of ownership has begun to emerge where local leaders and community members
see tangible benefit:  Conflict management through clear boundaries and rules;  Fee-for-use (seen in only one community);  Strengthened relationships with district officials;  Use of FESs in villages where fuel wood is a challenge;  Use of quality control in coffee processing; and,  Private nurseries and woodlots. In most villages, the VLUP process has not developed a sense of LUP ownership. While VLUPs
draw on a wealth of information clearly gathered through community consultation, the plans read
like ones prepared for the community but not by the community. Village stakeholder participation in
the conception of project ideas and the formulation of objectives and strategies has been limited.
The GMU Project has yet to develop dialogue platforms within the VLUP process through which
local people and other locally active stakeholders can contribute as primary actors in balancing
livelihood opportunities and ecosystem health. Among project ecosystem stakeholders, there are
varied dimensions of power, characterized by education, wealth, gender, age and experience within
or beyond the village or at national or local levels, among others. All of these may affect
empowerment and the emergence of ownership; they are replete with issues that would benefit
greatly from skillful, trusted facilitation.
While the GMU Project has raised awareness on gender, training and follow-up focused on specific
issues has been limited. Female role models have emerged in some villages, but the project does not
appear to have actively developed opportunities for female leadership. Participation at meetings and
in village encounters was, in all cases, male-dominated. The team was, nonetheless, struck on a
number of occasions, generally toward the end of meetings, and often in response to active probing
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 29
on the part of the team, by the clarity, insight, depth and breadth of understanding that women
added to the discussion.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 30
RECOMMENDATIONS42
1. BALANCE CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD/DRIVERS
The new phase should balance investment in addressing conservation values against corresponding
livelihood-related drivers. To develop and strengthen livelihood opportunities, JGI must ensure that
a value chain perspective is given equal weight with a conservation perspective in its strategic action
planning and in the day-to-day action learning of its team and partners. For livelihoods to thrive,
project interventions must be based on an appreciation of and insight into specific value chains to
inform operational strategies for developing needed technical and market capacities and
relationships. While biodiversity conservation criteria should be used to screen identified options,
they should not be used as a starting point for their identification. JGI should lead reflection and learning more strongly to derive principles and lessons that help
integrate the conservation, livelihoods and natural resource governance dimensions. The project
should assess and build on elements that show promise for sustainability, such as firefighting, forest
monitors, forest regeneration, user fees, and value chain-oriented opportunities.
JGI and district councils should support villages in introducing fees for use of resources in the
village forest areas, guided by village and district policies to invest appropriately in monitoring and
sustainable management of the forest. District policy should support the collection, retention, and
use of fees through the VLUP by-laws for the purposes of sustainably managing the forest and
investing in community priorities for their well-being.
To identify and develop value chain opportunities, the project should draw on other value chain
experience in Tanzania and lessons learned from its own experience43, particularly with coffee, e.g.,
farmer learning-by-doing and quality control. It should invest in a number of small, opportunistic
experiments in potential openings, based on a “quick-and-dirty” appraisal of demand, supply and
prices. This “enough good tries” approach complements JGI’s present approach to livelihood
opportunities, which the GMU Program Manager at one point referred to as “jumping on the
moving train.” Nonetheless, developing the analytic base, strategic approach, action planning and
day-to-day, on-the-ground accompaniment for a successful “learning” portfolio of livelihood
activities cannot be conducted on the basis of a series of one-off studies and activities. JGI must
integrate value chain perspective and expertise into its site-based activities and the day-to-day
deliberations of its technical assistance team.
Innovative experiments that JGI should consider include working directly with charcoal and
livestock – two value chains that have been seen, thus far, only as drivers of degradation. By
working directly with these potentially highly destructive value chains, JGI and project stakeholders
will gain deeper insight into how to address the real-world dynamics of land and water management
by farm households and outside stakeholders, and how to strengthen the local area forest reserve
(LAFR) and village land use models through improvements in productivity, sustainable land
42 See Annex H for additional recommenations and details on practical application. 43See Annex H and the section on value chain stakeholders in Annex D.2. Evaluation Findings by Stakeholder
Institution: Summary Notes.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 31
management, and value added. Cattle and sustainable charcoal have positive short and mid-term
market outlooks, which is fundamental to developing the tangible benefits that drive behavior
change. Horticulture would be a less ecologically risky experiment (although still risky, as
neighboring farmers could readily begin cultivating near water sources or on hillsides without using
contour planting and soil retention interventions). The GMU Program Manager also noted the
possibility that a mango processing plant may be built several hours to the south of the project area.
An important aspect of JGI’s role in leading these adaptive learning activities would be to provide a
proper enabling environment for experimentation that takes into account both value chain and
conservation criteria. For priority value chains, the new phase should focus on building ownership
and long-term capacity, encouraging the innovative exploration of opportunities for technical,
institutional and market development. Particular focus should be given to building strategic
relationships among farmer producers and between farmer groups and market actors, and to
diversifying and expanding market-oriented knowhow and experience. JGI should strongly consider adding additional staff with the following expertise to its core team:  Monitoring and evaluation expert, with experience in developing monitoring systems to assess
capacity-building and livelihoods (as well as conservation);  Livelihoods/value chains expert, with experience working with small-scale enterprise; and,  Training specialist, adept in designing and demonstrating the application of community-based
facilitative participatory methods. 2. DUAL APPROACH
The new phase should carry out a dual approach, informed by adaptive learning. It should engage
more deeply in selected villages, while supporting districts in maintaining a broader presence in the
remaining ones. In particular, the new phase should:  Deepen, downsize and consolidate the model for carrying out VLUP planning and management;  Downscale the strategic thinking of CAPs to the VLUP process and broaden the scope to
balance the conservation perspective with a deeper analysis of the economic drivers of land use
change;  Help GoT (district and village governments) efficiently spread implementation; and
 Assist districts in devising low-cost models for developing and scaling up VLUPs and other
initiatives.
To help stakeholders capture and make use of this learning, JGI should apply a step-by-step
“adaptive learning cycle” model through stronger M&E (and with attention to learning to capture
and respond to the unexpected outcomes). JGI should develop an MIS as a model for information
management and sharing. The MIS should enable comparative analysis over time and across
landscapes, districts, and villages.JGI should design the MIS with a clear exit strategy, defining more
rigorously the results it expects to achieve and reformulating them as appropriate to ensure that they
become locally “owned.”
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 32
JGI should revise the PMP for the follow-on GMU program. In particular, for the goal-level
indicator for area of biological significance under improved management and for the IR 2 indicator
for forest connectivity, JGI should consider adding a custom indicator for capacity building, based
on established and more rigorous methods for indices. In addition to having a land/resource
use/management plan, the definition for areas under improved management should specify that the
institutional capacity to implement the plan meets a designated threshold on the institutional
capacity indices.
3. STAKEHOLDER OWNERSHIP
The new phase should place primary stakeholders in the driver’s seat, beginning at the village level
and supported at the district level. In selected priority villages, JGI should work with district and
village stakeholders to review existing VLUPs and carry out PRAs that enable communities to
develop LUPs that reflect their own categories and the full range of community members’ priorities
as a base for choosing to incorporate conservation criteria. From the start of the new phase, JGI
should help districts and villages explore their diverse interests and identify, articulate and build on
past positive elements/activities, as well as lessons learned.
JGI should take full advantage of the guidance set forth in the national guidelines for village land use
planning to review and strengthen methods that enable local stakeholders to articulate and build on
what they know, participate in analyzing and setting priorities, internalize (own) the approaches and
specific tools, and creatively find solutions together. JGI should ensure that field and partner staff are committed and skilled in facilitating participatory
development. PRA review and renewal can assess and strengthen commitment and skills. JGI
should ensure a two-track process that builds on the VLUP experience to date, while encouraging
meaningful “bottom-up” engagement. This will require returning to communities with keen
attention to developing their ownership of processes, priorities and plans:  GoT guidelines for the process, as pointed out by the District Community Development Officer
(DCDO) in Nsimbo, are eminently participatory. JGI should ensure that the spirit of the
guidelines comes alive in each village.  Where VLUPs are well-detailed, care should be taken to set priorities through inclusive,
transparent and iterative discussion of interests and criteria.  The CAP matrices and methods and study on drivers should be scaled to the village level,
enabling the trade-offs and issues related to conservation and development to be explored fully
by villagers, themselves. The basic methods are simple enough to be adapted for this.  The matrices and methods of CAPs and the driver study can, likewise, be adapted to integrate
with livelihood analytic approaches. JGI should also consider making other diagnostic
approaches, including value chains, Elinor Ostrom’s socio-ecological systems analysis, even
simple Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, accessible to
village-level stakeholders.  CAP results-chain analyses need to balance the nature, wealth and power dimensions noted in
JGI’s original (2009) application. Under the new phase, these would be the dimensions of eco- system or habitat, market (value chain) and VLUM.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 33
 Apply national guideline principles and the project’s strengthening of participatory criteria- setting, inclusiveness, transparency and communication/outreach to help district and village
leaders strengthen decision-making for their village’s larger infrastructure investments and better
understand the relationships of these investments relative to the natural resource base.
The VLUP process can also benefit from links with group-based livelihood activities, such as
Farmer Field Schools, that foster self-reliant learning and reflection (e.g., JGI’s partner, FZS, has had
positive experience with cross-learning between village community banks (VICOBA) and VLUMs). 4. STRENGTHEN PARTICIPATION AND CAPACITY OF WOMEN
(AND OTHER DISADVANTAGED GROUPS)
The new phase must strengthen the participation and capacity of women in the decision making and
implementation of project-supported activities at the village level. The team encountered several
gender-oriented initiatives not supported by the GMU Project – often in the health sector – that
draw women into reflecting upon and recognizing their own power. For example, one Kigoma- based NGO’s approach to gender-based violence and conflict management uses a method of small
mixed-gender, age-based, facilitated, iterative discussion, i.e., discussions that are initially
accompanied by an outside facilitator over a series of sessions. These kinds of participatory social
change approaches build ownership and can adapt well to natural resources planning, management
and enforcement.
5. CONSIDER HEALTH
The new phase should consider strengthening and expanding the community-based health capacities
that are already in place. As noted above, much of this work also employs sound gender approaches.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 34
LESSONS LEARNED
Under the GMU Project, JGI, its partners and its beneficiaries have developed diverse experience
replete with lessons. The most significant high-level lessons are “old,” well-known ones: Long￾term engagement, with multiple stakeholders, and at multiple levels is essential for positive
changes in governance practices and improvements in the management of land and natural
resource uses. Because long-established practices and narrow or short-term perspectives and
interests are strong, beneficial change requires continuity and consistent engagement. The GMU
Project’s most significant impacts (e.g., forest regeneration) have required years of trial and error on
the part of project stakeholders at all levels – and building and re-building trust as leaders change.
A critical factor for success has been progress toward ever-more empowered participation
on the part of villages and groups within villages. The GMU Project has shown that developing
leadership capacities requires both knowledge and practice – making judgments and learning from
the consequences of those judgments. In multi-stakeholder situations, the consequences have many
dimensions and, with leadership and structural changes at both district and village levels, learning
has not always been efficient. As Ostrom has pointed out,44 however, continuous, interactive
dialogue and participatory approaches can overcome the tragedy of the open-access commons. In
this regard, the national guidelines for participatory development of land use plans have
proven essential, but not sufficient. While participatory guidelines can help strengthen
relationships among stakeholders within communities and between communities and districts, “tacit
knowledge” plays an important part in their successful application to empower.
The GMU Project has demonstrated that the “tangible” benefit needed to catalyze change
can be achieved in different ways: through links with markets or ecosystem functions, as concrete
and immediate “hard” benefits, or as long-term “soft” benefits whose potential lies in the future.
Project-introduced changes or innovations require careful mentoring and supervision.
Scaling beyond what the project has been able to adequately support has required trade-offs
and involved risks with respect to conservation, natural resource governance and
livelihoods. While the GMU Project has rightly focused primarily on natural resource governance,
it has not captured the learning from “testing” governance across multiple sites well. As a result,
lessons are not clear with respect to things like the implementation of PLUM guidelines, the
development of local by-laws relative to national laws, the costs and benefits of project-run
“parallel” monitoring systems (see also Annex K), or the devolution of specific authorities as
allowed by law, and how this may endanger or safeguard social and environmental well-being.
In the end, the most significant lessons have not differed greatly from those learned by participants
in hundreds of similar projects worldwide. While for project stakeholders, the lessons were new and
have not been fully articulated, much of the learning, unremarkably, addresses issues similar to those
described in a USAID report a dozen years ago,45 which are summarized at the end of Annex H.
44 Ostrom (2007), A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. 45 International Resources Group, Ltd (2000). Community Based Conservation Experience in Tanzania: An Assessment
of Lessons Learned.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 35
REFERENCES
See Annex H
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 36
ANNEXES
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 37
ANNEX A: RESULTS FRAMEWORK/USAID46
46 Source: Revised PMP (2013)
” Agriculture, Trade & Investment”
“USAID Goal: Contribute to the national poverty reduction goal by promoting agriculture, trade & investment, and biodiversity”
Economic growth
4.7 Economic opportunities 4.8 Environment
4.7.3 Strengthen micro-enterprise activity 4.8.1 Natural resources & biodiversity
“JGI Goal: Conserve biodiversity and protect and restore wildlife habitat in critical ecosystems in western
Tanzania”
Obj 1: Expanded area under improved
natural resource management
Obj 2: Increased incomes and
benefits from sustainable use of
natural resources
IR 6:
Environmentally
friendly
agricultural
practices
promoted
IR 4:
Capacity of
communities
to manage
and control
forest fire
increased
IR 3:
Major drivers
of
deforestation
identified and
mitigated
IR 2:
Forest connectivity
achieved and
maintained through
participatory forest
management.
IR 7:
Income from
environmentally
friendly enterprises
in project area
increased
Obj 3: Laws and policies supporting
conservation and forest connectivity
enforced
IR 5:
Capacity of LGAs
and communities to
monitor illegal
extraction of natural
resources in
conservation areas
increased
IR 1:
Village Land Use
Plans in targeted
villages developed
and implemented.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 38
ANNEX B: STATEMENT OF WORK
BACKGROUND
The Tanzania Natural Resource Management (NRM) Program, works to achieve an overall Strategic
Objective (SO) 13, “Biodiversity conserved in targeted landscapes through livelihood driven
approaches”. The program works under 3 distinct earmarks, Water, Biodiversity, and Climate
Change, and is currently implementing five programs in targeted landscapes of Tanzania, which are
all, coming to an end in early 2014. In addition a new Country Development Cooperation Strategy
(CDCS) is currently being developed for the Tanzania Mission. The NRM program is therefore well
positioned to develop a new program strategy which is in line with the CDCS process. Analytical
work is a critical component in contributing to the development and design of this process.
dTS has been asked to conduct end of project evaluations of two critical projects supported by the
NRM program; Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation in western
Tanzania implemented by the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), and the Scaling up Conservation and
Livelihoods Efforts in northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ) implemented by African Wildlife
Foundation (AWF).
Findings from both evaluations will be used to contribute to lessons learned from project
approaches and related outcomes, as well as contribute to new NRM program design. The
evaluations will be undertaken concurrently due to time constraints, to align with the new design
phase for the NRM program.
Both the JGI and AWF projects are funded under the NRM Strategic Objective (SO) 13
“Biodiversity conserved in targeted landscapes through livelihood driven approaches” and
contribute to the SO13 intermediate results:  IR1 Policies and laws that integrate conservation and development applied
 IR2 Participatory landscape scale conservation practiced
 IR3 Transparent and equitable benefits from the sustainable management of natural
resources generated.  IR4 Improved Health and Well-being of general and vulnerable populations
A Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) has been developed for each project which sets out
Intermediate Results against which progress towards the objectives are measured, contributing in
turn towards the overall goal. JGI PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) is implementing the Landscape-Scale Community Centered
Ecosystem Conservation project in western Tanzania. The project covers 52 administrative villages,
targeting more than 300,000 people. The project targets the Greater Masito-Ugalla (GMU) landscape
which totals 1,204,700 ha of which 63% is covered by forest and miombo woodlands. The GMU
landscape is rich with biodiversity, and has an estimated number of 600-1000 chimpanzees,
including the historically and scientifically important communities of chimpanzees in Gombe
National Park made famous through Jane Goodall’s ground breaking research.
The project goal is to conserve biodiversity and protect and restore wildlife habitat in this critical
ecosystem in western Tanzania. As such the project takes a holistic approach and focuses on
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 39
community based management of forests, and woodlands, and the promotion of more sustainable
and productive livelihood practices. Cross cutting issues include gender, environmental education,
climate change adaptation and mitigation and HIV/AIDS education and sensitization.
The project is a four year project which started January 4, 2010 and was intended to end January 3,
2014; however, a 3 month no cost extension has been given to extend the project until March 31st,
2014.
JGI’s conservation interventions at village and landscape scale levels, work to achieve two key
objectives: (1) an expansion of the area under improved natural resource management, and (2) an
increase of household incomes through sustainable utilization of natural resources.
The main intermediate results of the project are:  IR1: Village Land Use Plans in targeted villages developed and implemented;  IR2: Forest Connectivity Achieved and Maintained through community based forest
management;  IR3: Major drivers of deforestation are identified and mitigated;  IR4: Capacity of the community to manage forest fires increased;  IR5: Capacity of local government to monitor illegal extraction of forest resources are
increased.  IR6: Environmentally friendly agricultural practices are promoted
 IR7: Income from environmentally friendly enterprises is increased.
The total USAID funding for the four years is $5,600,000. The table below shows the allocation of
funds by funding year and the funding categories and earmarks:
Table C-1: Allocation of Funds by Funding Year
Direct USAID Mission Funding
Description FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total
PEPFAR 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000
Biodiversity
earmark 1,800,000 - 1,200,000 1,200,000 4,200,000
Agriculture 300,000 - - - 300,000
Climate Change - 300,000 - - 300,000
Grand Total 2,300,000 500,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 5,600,000
JGI PROJECT RATIONALE
Research has shown that in the areas near Gombe National Park approximately 50% of the natural
forest and woodland was lost between 1991 and 2003, making the deforestation rate more than
three times as high as that experienced by the country as a whole during that same period.
Deforestation is considered the major threat to biodiversity caused by unsustainable use of forest
resources as farmers employ traditional, subsistence and shifting cultivation which results in forest
degradation and an influx of livestock into the ecosystem. Rapidly increasing annual population
growth of about 4.8% and the impacts of climate change within western Tanzania are also major
threats to the future of biodiversity in the area. The most current and significant refugee impact on
the forests within the area is observed around Mishamo refugee settlement in Mpanda district. The
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 40
spread of HIV/AIDS among farmers, fisherman and other worker’s in the region has also started to
noticeably affect productivity and increase the impact on natural resources.
The JGI GMU project builds on the successes of their Greater Gombe Ecosystem project
supported by USAID and other donors from 2005-2009. JGI believes the best way to achieve both
economic development and biodiversity conservation in rural landscapes is to address the two
simultaneously, by involving and empowering the local population to make responsible natural
resource management decisions. JGI has therefore developed an adaptive, holistic and community
centered approach to the conservation of biodiversity and wildlife habitat that builds capacity and
empowers communities. JGI works in close collaboration with local leaders and stakeholders, as well
as regional and national government authorities, to implement interventions that directly engage the
local population in more sustainable land use practices and increase local understanding of the
importance of natural resource conservation, while addressing development and social welfare
needs. Their hypothesis is, by supporting village-level efforts to create and adopt detailed land use
plans, provide sustainable economic development and improve public health, JGI’s programs can
reduce the impact and even reverse the destructive effects of deforestation, habitat loss, and
unsustainable agricultural techniques.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFTHE EVALUATION
The purpose of the two end of project performance evaluations (see above) is to help inform
USAID, implementing partners and relevant stakeholders on:  The overall key achievements and outcomes of the projects;  Effectiveness of each project and its integrated designs in achieving intended results,  Sustainability of the approaches implemented and potential for scaling up.
Findings and recommendations from both evaluations will as well contribute to the Natural
Resource Management Program design. Both evaluations will focus from the initial start-up of the
programs until completion.
Specific evaluation questions include:
JGI PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. How relevant are the project targets (e.g. coverage, geographic focus, target beneficiaries) in
achieving intended results?
2. How effective147 has the JGI project approaches been in reaching intended outcomes of the
project in the key programming areas of:
a. Improved forest resource management and monitoring,
b. Increased H/H incomes from conservation based enterprises/livelihoods, and
c. Improved health- (focused on improving education, care, support to HIV/AIDS
affected families)?
47 Effectiveness in terms of whether the project was able to achieve the intended or expected outcome in the key project areas
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 41
3. What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the project approach and why?
4. Has gender been considered in the design and implementation of the project and to what
extent? Have both men and women benefitted and how? How well are other cross cutting
issues integrated into the project design/approach (HIV/AIDS, climate change,
environmental education)?
5. How effective are the project monitoring systems and oversight, reporting and
documentation?
6. What are the underlying key constraints/opportunities (internal/external) that have
potentially impacted performance of the project (capacity, staffing, organizational support,
political context, etc.)?
7. What are some identified key recommendations and lessons learned which could enhance
project performance?
8. How successful has the project been in starting to scale up approaches? What are the
opportunities/challenges for further scaling up?
9. Is sustainability considered in the project design (e.g. were measures put in place for creating
sustainability from the beginning)? Is progress being made toward sustainability48 for
improving community livelihoods (e.g. income from sustainable practices) and forest
management? Is local government ownership/community involvement sufficient to
continue post-program? Are relevant and sufficient policies and bylaws in place, etc.?
INTENDED AUDIENCE
For both evaluations, the findings and lessons learned will be relevant for USAID, and especially
USAID/Tanzania to contribute to the development and design of a new USAID/Tanzania NRM
program. Relevant findings will also be shared with other key stakeholders and intended
beneficiaries of the projects.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
For both tasks at hand, the evaluations shall use existing baseline data. The evaluations will take a
comparative pre/post analysis, taking a sample of villages which have received support from the
relevant projects, to better understand outcomes; their impact and sustainability. A mixed method
design should be developed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The use of innovative
and participatory approaches is recommended. Observation will also be an important method for
data collection.
The evaluations shall generate creditable evidence that corresponds to the evaluation questions being
asked.
The evaluations will include the following steps:
48 Sustainability defined both in terms of having proper management systems in place which ensures that the use of
natural resources is at a rate which does not reduce the system’s ability to provide those products and services to future
generations, as well as economic viability.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 42
1. Desk Review of existing program documents: This includes but not limited to:
a. Project Description Document
b. Annual work plans
c. Quarterly performance reports
d. Performance Monitoring Plan
e. Existing project evaluations
f. Baseline Reports
g. Relevant Policy Documents
2. Meetings with Key Informants- the team will be required to meet with relevant key
stakeholders, including government (e.g. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
TANAPA), donors, NGOs, and CBOs.
3. Site Visits- selected site visits will be required to conduct surveys, interviews and focused
discussions with key stakeholders, and beneficiary/targeted groups (e.g. women, coffee
farmers, bee keepers, authorized associations, village scouts, etc.) in selected villages of the
target area of intervention, to triangulate data, and fill in information gaps as needed.
The contractor shall develop an evaluation plan (design, tools) for each task. The proposed
evaluation design, data collection methods and analysis plan will be submitted to USAID/Tanzania
for review and approval. Prior to field visits, the evaluators will conduct a meeting with
USAID/Tanzania and other stakeholders to present the methodology and approach which will be
used to gather data.
All data analysis will include gender considerations. The evaluation teams will describe the strengths
and limitations of the proposed design and methodology and develop specific recommendations for
addressing the limitations in order to enhance as much as possible the quality of the evaluations.
The contractor will closely coordinate with the project staff and other supporting partners in
Tanzania on the logistics for the fieldwork. However, it will be the responsibility of the contractor to
cover all logistics required to fulfill the requirements of this contract (office space, transportation,
travel arrangements, equipment, etc.). The contractor will be responsible for scheduling their own
appointments, hotels, etc. USAID/Tanzania will offer limited support including introductory letters
and contact information for primary implementers and development partners the evaluation teams
will meet with, and contacts for people to invite to meetings and briefings.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 43
ANNEX C: MEMBERS OF EVALUATION TEAM
Team Leader Allen Turner has 30 years of experience in conservation, natural resource management
and governance, sustainable agriculture, economic development, and institutional development in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. He designs, implements, and evaluates programs that help people
manage change on the interface of traditional livelihoods, natural landscapes, and the global political
economy. He has helped local stakeholders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America develop capacity,
relationships, commitment, and informed leadership to participate confidently in public decisions
and competitively in the marketplace.
Mr. Turner has implemented evaluations in more than a dozen countries, including multi-sectoral,
multi-stakeholder evaluations integrating biodiversity and livelihoods and most recently, an
assessment of USG programming in conservation and livelihoods in Tibet (2009), and the mid-term
evaluation of the Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) program (2013). Mr. Turner also
supervised the evaluation of the First Phase of USAID’s Global Conservation Partnership program.
His most recent work includes development of adaptive learning approaches as Chief of Party for
community-based conservation and livelihood programs in Nigeria and Liberia, including land use
planning and protected area management. His experience leading long-term projects has provided
him with practical perspective for understanding long-term processes within the brief window of an
evaluation. Mr. Turner has a BA in Anthropology from Yale University and a Master’s degree in
International Agriculture and Rural Development from Cornell University.
Evaluation Specialist Peter Riwa has over 20 years of experience managing and conducting
evaluations. Mr. Riwa worked 13 years with international and local partners in conducting research,
evaluations, and training in reproductive health and HIV/AIDS and has facilitated technical
meetings in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda. In addition to the majority of this work, with USAID- supported programs, he has also worked with World Bank, Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, now Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)) programs. Before his career in public health he worked as a research
manager for the National Family Planning Program of the Ministry of Health in Tanzania for ten
years, where he participated in data collection, analysis, report writing and dissemination of results
for national surveys. Mr. Riwa holds an MA in Applied Population Research from the Institute of
Population Studies at the University of Exeter, UK and an MA in Demography from the University
of Dar es Salaam.
Technical Specialist, Dr. Christopher M.P. William is a geographer and ecologist with seven years of
experience in nature conservation, natural resource management, fire ecology, resource use conflict
management, climate variability and change, and nature-society interactions in Africa. He has
experience working on climate change impacts on ecosystem services and food security in East
Africa, particularly on increasing knowledge, building capacity and developing adaptation strategies.
He has assessed climate change impacts on water provision and trained water sector stakeholders in
Tanzania and Ethiopia. In addition, he trained in the geography of health and healthcare. He
designs, implements, and evaluates programs. His evaluation work in Tanzania includes multi- sectoral and multi-stakeholder programs such as the Final Evaluation of the UN Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) programme-Tanzania (2012), the FAO
Community Based Fire Management (2012), and a Mid Term Review of Norway-funded Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Project – Tanzania (2013).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 44
Dr. William has a Ph.D. in Geography- Ecology, conservation, and climate-fire challenges from the
University of Minnesota, USA. He has a BA (Honors) and Master of Geography and Environmental
Management from the University of Dar es Salaam. He has published scientific articles on natural
resources related conflicts, attitudes and trust, livelihood diversification and implications for food
security and poverty in Maasai communities, and the implications of changing land uses on
biodiversity conservation in critical mountain ecosystems such as Kilimanjaro and the Uluguru
Nature Reserve. He has shared his evaluation and research findings in national, regional (SADC),
and international meetings.
Edward Kigenza has a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Dar es Salaam and received M&E
training from Measure Evaluation. Edward has worked on number of consultancies ranging from
health to development and has worked for the Henry Jackson Foundation, IntraHealth International
and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS foundation on monitoring and evaluation projects.
Other evaluation team members included two enumerators, Natihaika Msangi and Elvis Mallya.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 45
ANNEX D: EVALUATION FINDINGS BY SITE AND STAKEHOLDER INSTITUTION
1.ANNEX TABLE D.1:EVALUATION FINDINGS49 BY SITE
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
Bubango
Village nursery attendant (VINA) left and new
one appointed by village government should
be “supported” to establish a nursery.
In both of the two households visited, the
fuel-efficient stoves were not being used.
Twiluke SACCOS has 80 members (36 men
and 44 women)
Some fires started by
National Park to
establish a fire break
between Park and
village have crossed
over to village farms
and forests.
VLUP by-laws prohibit
setting fires in forests
or any extractive
activity without a
permit. Any exploitative
use of the wildlife area
near the village
proximity is punishable
by a fine of TSh
50,000.
Enforcement reported to be a
challenge for forest protection at
Bwamanga, a site in Bubango
where Kigoma DC and a
Councilor support building
primary school, new settlement,
illegal charcoal making, and
cutting trees.
Village government feels
overpowered by district
authorities and local councilor.
Joint activities with Gombe
National Park have ceased.
Improved availability of
water
Delineation of a village
forest that is
regenerating and
thriving
Village boundary
established (although
neighboring
Mwamgongo noted
boundary dispute
outstanding)
Private forests
established
Introduction of fuel
efficient stoves
Bugwe
During harvest season, about 10 to 20 four￾ton trucks per week come to carry away
maize and other products, including rice,
cassava, other cereals (sorghum, millet…),
and oilseeds (sunflower).
All of the men in the group had hives. 80
VLUP not developed.
Team saw newly-felled
trees along road either
burning or uncollected,
from new maize fields
carved out of miombo
Village is a home for two ethnic
groups—the Bende and Sukuma
agro-pastoralists; the latter have
migrated from neighboring
regions. Conflicts between the
two ethnic groups were reported.
49 Source: Observations by team and opinions of participants in Interviews and Focus Group Discussions in villages. Not all statements have been verified. Some opinions appear to be the result of misunderstanding and some concern activities not directly related to the GMU Project. Woodlot data and, except for Katambike,
data on SACCOS membership provided by JGI.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 46
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
tradition hives, with yield of about 20
liters/hive @ TSh 1 to 2,000/liter. Must take
to market in Mpanda; buyers do not come to
Bugwe to buy honey. JGI came with 90
improved hives for the three villages, 30 for
each; Bugwe has 28 hives now. The good
thing about improved hives is that they come
with gear and you don’t need smoke. The
bad is that without smoke, more bees are
killed during management. The rope to hang
them in the tree is weak and won’t support a
honey-filled hive. Traditional hives last
longer; you inherit them from your
grandfather.
woodland.
Chan-kele
At this initial site visit to field test instruments,
meeting was organized at primary school,
where children were ejected from 2
classrooms. Village Chairman indicated
payment of seating allowances expected and
strongly resisted efforts to change this.
Twilagile SACCOS has 15 members (5
male and 10 women)
15 men and 7 women planted woodlots, with
a total of 6,342 trees in 2011-12.
Village leaders were not able to
identify specific beneficiaries of
project, which impeded HH
survey. Project effects appeared
not to be widely spread.
Ilagala
Mwangu SACCOS received support from JGI
on how to set up SACCOS but no training in
business skills; however, they get support
from Action Aid and are carrying out different
kinds of livelihood activities. Mwangu
SACCOS has 868 members (332 male and
536 women)
SACCOS members feel the best use of the
loans is to invest in tools of production, like
improved fishing gear.
“We were trained on how to form groups so
we may work together to generate income
through teamwork so we may improve our
well-being. But we still feel we do not know
well how to run the groups. Some members
No firebreaks, because
they need a budget.
The [Norwegian-funded] REDD+
trial payment was invested wholly
in infrastructure (and
administrative building for the
village).
JGI should use the existing group
(cadre) as a steppingstone for
improving project performance.
Transparency: “We just saw
things [project activities] being
implemented... But we were not
informed of income and
expenditures. We did not even
know how much money they
[JGI] allocated to us so we could
Have set aside
degraded forest areas,
each of which they’ve
named and they
improved them through
regeneration.
JGI has created a
group (cadre) with
which it works and
there is no need for a
new structure in the
next phase.
Trained forest monitors
are still working in the
village.
JGI should give more
capital to income
generating groups. If JGI
can’t give grants, then
make capital available as
loans.
Forest monitors and
environmental committees
should be given incentives
to strengthen their working
spirit and commitment.
JGI should be closer to the
community than it was in
the past.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 47
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
are not active in the groups….. If it happens
they [JGI] come again they should provide
more training to us (as groups).”
5 men and 2 women planted woodlots, with
5,300 trees.
monitor its specified use. Next
time they should let us know…”50
Kalinzi
Those who practice “zero-grazing”51 find
lower returns, but they are not sure if it’s
because of the breed or the way the
husbandry practices are carried out. While
no herdsmen appeared to be present at the
meeting, the women present spoke up more
actively on the technical details of this topic.
“If we would achieve CCROs, that would
strengthen the idea of ownership, to obtain
loans, to educate our children… I would go
wisely for a loan.”52 Some village representatives said that there
were “no coffee farmer groups” to visit.
“People have not benefitted from coffee.”
The team was informed later that this group
of people had objected to joining a coop to
negotiate better prices. They thought they
could make more if they sold individually.
A (non-GMU) horticulture project with
irrigation supported by Sustainable Harvest
was abandoned. The village representatives
said the conception of the project was not
“proper” and that most participants made
losses, as they did not understand how to
access a secure market. By “proper”, they
explained that the project idea was not the
villagers’ initiative but a “foreign” idea that
required villager participation.
JGI brought in good
ideas, e.g., each HH
planting trees, but it
also initiated tree
planting on barren
lands but it wasn’t
feasible.
During dry season,
there’s not enough
forage so the animals
must graze in
neighboring villages,
mainly on the lowlands
and on “old” [?] land,
usually through a
mutual agreement with
the owner. (No
payments are made
but the manure is left
for the owner.)
Setting fire in forests is
prohibited, as is any
extractive activity in the
forest without a permit.
The fine for a violation
is TSh 10,000 to
50,000 and/or 12 years
imprisonment.
Village government appears to be
top-down, with sharp
understanding of project
patronage and limited
understanding of markets and
market-oriented enterprise.
Trees around the farms
in the village: “When
you see trees planted
as a windbreak, you
know that’s a project
idea.”
Vegetable producers in
Kigoma region are now
securing markets in
neighboring Burundi.53
If project would come
again, we would like:
To see it be “more
participatory.”
Complete the PLUM
process.
Begin with an assessment
of what’s needed
“More frequent visits” by
JGI, “if possible”, and an
office in the village, so we
can see them, so we can
learn from them.
Entrepreneurial skills (e.g.,
people are doing irrigation
but they have no skills in
markets)
Focus on gender balance
and marginalized people.
Equal opportunity is
adequate for the majority,
but people with HIV/AIDS
should be given
preference.
Health aspects (one
woman added).
Latrines, teachers’
50 Not all agreements with village representatives appeared to have been well communicated with community members. Members of this discussion group strongly
implied that a few “smart” people may have dominated and benefitted most from their involvement with the project. Nonetheless, villagers had been made aware of
their right to know how money allocated for development activities was spent. For example, villagers pointed out that income from and expenditures for JGI- supported project activities had not been posted on the noticeboard as needed for good governance and transparency. 51 Although environmentally-friendly, “zero-grazing” (or “cut-and-carry”) was not one of the practices promoted by the GMU Project. 52 “Kama tukipata hati za kimila za kumiliki ardhi zitaimarisha dhana ya umiliki, kupata mikopo, kusomesha watoto….nitakuwa makini kuchukua mkopo”
53 Beatrice Philemon (2014), “Farmers in Kigoma Region secure crop markets in Burundi”, The Guardian, Thursday, August 28, 2014: Business and Foreign, p.1.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 48
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
Ecotourism attractions are on private
property. The owner of a famous shrine has
been felling trees in the forest. There are no
trails to the beautiful waterfalls.
Tulashashe SACCOS has 60 members (35
men and 25 women)
14 men, 9 women, and the Islamic Union
planted woodlots, with 20,919 trees.
quarters, and water supply.
JGI should allow VINAs to
sell seedlings at full market
price. VINA said selling to
the market means that the
buyer is committed and will
take care of the seedlings.
Kasuku
3 of the 4 houses visited had abandoned
fuel-efficient stoves. The HHs were using dry
branches collected from palm trees around
the homestead as fuel instead of wood from
the village forest. Charcoal-efficient burners
were seen in many compounds; one had just
been rebuilt by a young boy.
Beekeeping was introduced. Villagers said
that yields were very poor because beehives
were placed in young forests with few flowers
and distant from water sources.
Luiche SACCOS has 32 members (25 men
and 7 women)
3 men planted woodlots, with 3,790 trees
No arrangements had been made
by the village government to
meet the team; however, an ex- village chairman and head of the
SACCOS received team and
brought together SACCOS
members. Upon expressing
interest in talking to VLUM
members and other groups which
implemented or benefitted from
the JGI project, they also said
they belonged to these groups of
interest.
Katam- bike
The SACCOS has about 150 members (100
women and 50 men). Loans have been
used for trading, e.g., in fish, and keeping
livestock. Started with TzS 700 and now
have more than 20 M. Don’t have a bank
account and are concerned that having one
of the members keep money in her house is
not safe.
Member who repaid by cell phone without
paying fees for transferring money left group
after group asked him for transfer fees that it
had paid.
VLUM leaders would
like to use their land
use plan to resettle
people from river bank areas. There is coordination
for management of
Tongwe East through
Yumatu, made up of
several villages with
VLUPs. They meet
quarterly.
Forest monitors
complain of poor
equipment and large
area to be monitored.
Village government
mentioned possibility of
using fees and fines to
support forest monitors
but not being done
The process of making by-laws is
not complete, with by-laws
presented to district, and the
village leaders had no plan at
hand. However, the formerly
open-access common forest is
now managed. They say they
are enforcing some by-laws even
before VLUP is approved.
In conflicts between farmers and
herders, by-laws are used for
reconciliation and then agree on
compensation. The village
government acts like a
broker…Fine is not paid to village
government; it is paid to
successful plaintiff.
Challenges to enforcement with
finger-pointing from different
sides. Village government may
have released people
Village government
collected resource use
fees in 2013 totaling
TzS 1.4 M
Reduction of conflict
between grazers and
farmers by establishing
the boundaries
between grazing and
agriculture… they
produced their own
map to help them
identify and solve their
own problems Sign board showing
land use zones at
entrance of village is
useful: it educates
people and helps with
compliance.
Villagers wanted to know if
they could they create
more groups of no more
than 10 or 15, because if
the number in the group is
greater than that, it
becomes problematic.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 49
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
when team visited. apprehended and some
impounded timber and charcoal
has “disappeared”.
Village government claimed
forest monitors were not
apprehending some criminals
they were acquainted with and
has exchanged forest monitors
from other villages to enhance
effectiveness.
Confiscated timber was used for
building a house for the health
clinic doctor, which they
managed to do by applying
principles they report having
learned through JGI training on
taking care of resources…
Kazura- mimba
Some people have begun conserving their
own woodlots, in expectation of possible
payments from REDD+.
For fuel-efficient stoves, demand is greater
than the supply, because the materials for
the stove are not available locally: clay is not
available locally, so bricks are not available.
A group of people suffering from HIV/AIDS
and tuberculosis received support for FESs
and feel that they have improved well-being;
as a result, others not in this group are
interested.
Under the VLUP, the
reserve forests are
being cut down…”even
the government forest
under patrol.” People
are now discouraged:
“If they can chop down
even that, then how
can we protect village
land?”54 Owners of oil palm
within 60 meters of
water sources are
allowed to continue to
harvest but not allowed
to tend trees.
There had been gender
imbalance in forest monitoring;
however, patrols have been
improved through restructured
committee made up of two
individuals from each hamlet (a
man and a woman from each).
Brick maker operating near a
water source was fined TzS
50,000 but charges were
dismissed. Some report he
learned his lesson nonetheless.
Others say that he counter-sued
the group for legal costs incurred,
but that a different judge ruled
against him.
Alluding to collusion of district
and village government
representatives with violators of
land use by-laws, one villager
VLUM members
appreciated the training
in good governance
that they received.
When village leaders
are elected they have
no prior training. They
were trained in good
governance, problem- solving, and conflict
management and
resolution. Having
been trained in good
governance, they learn
when to “leave” and
when to “lead”. They
learn how to
apprehend people
properly: “I inform the
VEO, who represents
The project should involve
all six schools in the
“school as change agent”
activity.
Environmental education
must be taken to a lower
level. As it was carried
out, only leaders would be
trained. A TOT is needed
[that will enable training of
other community
members].
54Kama serikali imeshindwa kudhibiti kuvunwa msitu wake wa hifadhi pamoja na kuwa na wafanyakazi wanaolipwa mshahara na siraha unategemea nini kuhusu msitu
wa hifadhi wa kijiji?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 50
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
said that the government
machinery does not support
implementation [enforcement] of
the VLUPs: Government “does
not do enough to use our laws”.
We are told we have received
two percent, but two percent of
what? It’s not transparent.
Women are the most burdened
and they recognize this. One
woman spoke out remarkably
strongly in support of greater
awareness of women’s rights.
the government and he
orders [the arrest.]”55
Kigalye
Fish drying on raised racks (privately owned
and rented to fishers)
Beehives introduced through TACARE;
difficult because of [honey badger?]
Katongwe SACCOS has 20 members (14
men and 6 women)
If the “fire burns long,
the longer you live”
While there was much more
arson in the past, fires are still set
maliciously, “to discredit the
VLUM”56 Villagers gave detailed
description of techniques, e.g.,
the use of cotton wool wrap
around a piece of hot charcoal.
The wrapped charcoal is left in
the forest to be ignited by wind
after the culprit is long gone,
which makes it difficult to
apprehend him or her.
The incidence of fires
has decreased greatly.
Mushrooms have
returned in the forest reserve
Kirando
Some HHs using fuel-efficient stoves have
reduced consumption from 2 bags to 1 bag of
charcoal per month.57 Charcoal dealers
added to their capital.
Making the clay ash grate for the fuel- efficient stoves is problematic; once it breaks,
they can’t replace it or make a new stove, so
they go back to using firewood. JGI asked
Although charcoal is
being harvested (which
in principle could be
regulated to provide
revenue), the village
has made no firebreaks
because there is no
budget for them.
Weak village government affects
enforcement of bylaws. A village
leader is suspected of colluding
with individuals using a military
truck to sell charcoal from village
forest. (The week before the
team’s visit, 60 bags were
collected.)
Forest monitoring has
improved previously
degraded forests.
The village claims to be
in the process of
legalizing its
management of forest
land under the
JGI “needs to be very
close to us and assess our
needs before implementing
anything…JGI should sit
with communities to
identify issues so that they
can address the right
ones.”
55 “Wanakamati wa VLUM walishukuuru kupata mafunzo ya utawala bora. Viongozi wa kijiji wanapochaguliwa hawana mafunzo kama hayo. Walifundishwa utawala
bora, namna ya kutatua matatizo, na jinsi ya kushughulikia migogoro na kuitatua. Wakishapata mafunzo ya utawala bora wanajua wakati gani wafanye nini. Wanajifunza
namna ya kuwakamata wahalifu. “Ninamjulisha Mtendaji wa Kijiji, ambaye ni mwakailishi wa serikali kijijini naye huamuru kukamatwa kwa mtuhumiwa wa uhalifu”
56 I.e., Mioto inachomwa makusudi “ili wanaVLUM waonekane hawafanyi kazi”
57 Villagers noted that charcoal use per month depends on multiple factors, e.g. if it is used for boiling drinking water, family size, or whether used charcoal is put out
or left to burn to ashes.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 51
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
them to take a specialist to train them back to
their village at their own cost. They also
complain that the heat of the fire is so strong
that the stove eats their pots.
Felt they’d been successful because had
made 140 stoves although the target was
only 100 stoves. (There are more than 1,000
households in Kirando.)
Poultry were introduced but all died; so JGI
advised should just use local chickens; tried
also and again all died… no vet visits…
No SACCOS was established.
FMs and Village
leaders alike
appreciated JGI’s
leadership of the land
use planning and forest
monitoring process, which they did not see
even as a district
initiative. They saw it as a “baby” of JGI,
which needs to nurture
it. They expressed no
interest in weaning this
“baby.” The FMs saw
themselves as
extension workers of
JGI.
People cutting trees are
apprehended but then released
by village government. FM has
been threatened by illegal
loggers. Villagers were unhappy
with action on apprehended
charcoal that to DC Headquarters
and sold, and money used by
DC.
“When so many things are run by
these outside institutions it
creates confusion. The nature of
activities is often similar, e.g.,
doing same in REDD+ … We
can’t tell…”
jurisdiction of the
central government.58 FESs have helped
save money and time.
Village received TzS
41.2 million through the
Norwegian-supported
REDD+ project. TzS
27.2 million was used
to construct two
classrooms and a
school office.
Remaining TzS 14
million to be used for
construction of one
more classroom and
three pit latrines.
The owner of a tree
nursery has profited
and invested in his
children’s studies.
Benefits are
ambiguous because he
has two nurseries—
one a village nursery
and one his own.
Villagers suggested patrols
in the second phase
should be enhanced; forest
monitors should be given
incentives and working
gear.
Mwa- mgongo
VLUMs were paid TzS 2,000 per day to build
contour lines…“nothing to show” for the
contours. Team observed no adoption
beyond the demonstration area. Team
observed cassava farms on very steep
slopes.
JGI and Hilltop helped bring tourists into the
village, but “they have stopped bringing
tourists…” [One tourist operator said that
they stopped bringing tourists to the village
due to very high and multiple fees.] German
volunteers built and donated to the village a
Low income families
would be given right to
harvest from the forest.
Established a bylaw
that prohibits going into
forest with a machete
and specifies that no
harvest can be made
without a VLUM
member accompanying
the user. Setting fire in
forests or carrying out
VLUM members have learned all
the standards and the VLUP
planning steps by rote. “We need
to learn more about steps 5 and
6” of the VLUP process.
Little transparency on how VLUM
is run. Some informants said that
the village government is not in
charge. One informant gave as
an example that JGI provided
subsidies directly to the VLUM for
construction of contours.
Forest cover has
increased.
Mushrooms have been
restored.
Education through
scholarships for girls
(non-USAID funding).
The SACCOS members
recommended letting them
know “what’s our share?—
we don’t know how much
is allocated to us.”
SACCOS members would
like help with fish ponds,
because lake fish have
been depleted. They have
local ponds but they’re not
being used. They would
like help with poultry,
58 When the team asked, “Are you thinking of joint forest management?”, villagers replied no: “We’ve made our claims” and said that their proposal has been
presented to the Assistant Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in Dar es Salaam. While the villagers’ expectations may be unrealistic, their active engagement in influencing the process of forest management may yield them some positive results.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 52
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
guest house to promote ecotourism but the
mattresses were stolen.
Matumaini SACCOS has 64 members (18
men and 46 women). JGI encouraged them
to start the SACCOS, linking with Twitunge—
[“sustain ourselves”] in Kigoma, with JGI
acting only as a “broker”. Communication
was not clear, e.g., on interest rates and
criteria for loans. No training in
entrepreneurship or financial management.
Twitunge gave money for loans for solar.
Some members did not get loans and no one
got as much as expected, so they felt that
JGI has stolen their money. Some people
started a business. Some had personal
problems that they did not wish to discuss.
“Did they bring this loan thing to send us to
jail?”
17 men and 10 women planted woodlots,
with 17,408 trees.
any extractive activity
in the forest without a
permit is an offense
with a fine of 50,000.
goats, and cows, and
would like to know about
improved management.
Vikonge
Prime Minister gave newly formed youth
group TzS 4.5million to buy bee hives. They
have not harvested but DC took sample to
2014 Nane Nane agri-business exhibition,
which won first prize for quality. Prime
Minister was disappointed that the youths
were not present.
VLUP identifies natural
forests, private
woodlots , individuals’
planted exotic trees
and woodlots owned by
institutions such as
Kasuku and Mihamani
primary schools.
All forested(Natural
and Planted) area is
estimated to be 500
acres
It is prohibited to set
fire in forests or do any
extractive activity in the
forest without a permit.
The fine for a
contravener is 10,000- 50,000.
Village government leaders had
appointed themselves as
members of VLUM. Village voted
them out and meeting to elect
new leadership broke up
violently. DC appointed an interim
government and village awaits
new elections. VLUM leadership
refused to leave office. Interim
village government leadership
appreciates work of JGI but they
want it to come back with
“washed hands”, i.e., with a new
VLUM elected democratically and
transparently.59
Villagers have
designated areas for
beekeeping activities
(nectar-yielding
flowering plants), water
catchment, fuel wood
and other wood related
resources
JGI and the district council
should support (train, find
markets for) income
generation groups e.g. bee
keeping groups.
59 While villagers were not happy with the way the VLUP process was carried out, they were not able to differentiate the roles of JGI and village leadership, e.g. in
selection of VLUM members. The misunderstanding tarnished the good image of JGI in the eyes of many villagers.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 53
Village Wealth and Well-Being:
Environmentally-friendly enterprises and
practices
Nature: VLUPs and
Forest management
Power: Governance, VLUMs, and
by-law enforcement
Benefits perceived by
villagers
Villager observations and
suggestions
Uvinza
JGI provided training, honey extraction
equipment, and took beekeepers to
exhibition to learn from best producers.
They have received
training and equipment
for harvesting honey
Beepers complained of
high prices for packaging
and lack of capital for extra
costs to improve quality. Production is very low;
some producers have not
yet harvested
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 54
2. EVALUATION FINDINGS BY STAKEHOLDER INSTITUTION: SUMMARY NOTES
Comments have been organized under four general categories of stakeholders: participants at the
Stakeholder Feedback meeting (on August 25, 2014, to review preliminary findings), district council
technical staff, JGI and local NGO partners, and value chain stakeholders. Where possible, the
summary notes have sought to preserve the spirit of these perspectives. Due to the different
perspectives of those interviewed, different and sometimes contradictory interpretations of the
project and its context are presented. Where possible, too, under each category the summaries have
been organized with conservation and governance issues presented first, followed by livelihood and
cross-cutting issues.
Participants at Stakeholder Feedback Meeting
Regional Administrative Secretary was surprised and grateful. Before hearing this discussion, he had
been thinking that the issues concerned JGI and not the districts.
In villages where VLUMs and Village government have good relationships and complement each
other rather than competing with each other land use plans can be effectively enforced. Lack of
communication and poor relationships between VLUMs and village government hinders
implementation and enforcement of land use plans.
It is possible for government to the share burden of land use management—districts can budget
funds for enforcing land use plans and bylaws, .e.g., Mpanda DC has budgeted Tsh 40 million for
land use planning.
There is lack of communication between various departments in the district. All relevant district
departments should meet regularly to update on the status of implementation of project activities.
This was in response to the decision of the education department to construct a school in village
forest reserve.
Communities have land use plans, zoned in various uses, with bylaws to enforce its use and the
community have begun talking about it in itself is a first significant step. There are other villages
where the idea of land use plan have be ridiculed and refused to have their land use planned.
Despite lack of effective implementation and enforcement of bylaws at least this has been a first
significant step to manage land uses across various users. It takes time to adjust to new realities.
Lack of effective communication and support from the districts is a major predicament to attainment
of sustainable land use plans. JGI should facilitate linkage between district and villages to enforce
bylaws and laws governing natural resource use.
In some villages VLUM member have taken more responsibilities than that specified in their job
descriptions. This has resulted in conflicts between VLUMs and village governments leading to
failure to operationalize land use plans. JGI should ensure that VLUMs and Village government work
close to ensure implementation of land use plans.
Bylaws are restrictive to natural resource use rather than facilitative for sustainable natural resource
use. This gives a bad name to the idea of having land use plans and therefore lack of community
acceptance.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 55
Political leaders encourage violations of land use plans in support of their voters whenever they
breach bylaws governing natural resources management
District government rather than VLUM members are the challenge. Apprehended people and
confiscated materials are taken to district and village does not collect fines and fees and therefore see
no benefit of engaging in process. ‘’How does district expect us to fund activities to enforce land use
plans and bylaws?” Villages are not legally allowed to collect fees and to charge fines until the
district designate that power to the village.
There are conflicting laws for natural resource management. The district legal person has agreed to
work together to have general acceptable guidelines to the village governments.
A village leader said the communities feel that:  There are technical issues, e.g., vetiver grass competes with cassava, and FESs meet limited
acceptance at the house hold level in areas where fuel wood is plentiful  Activities initiated by JGI are sometimes inappropriate (supply-side orientation; did not start at
village level where activities are implemented. Cited example of fishermen and tobacco farmers
who accepted bee keeping support, but without interest and experience  There is a lack of or there are limited tangible benefits from participating in those activities.  High expectations from JGI and lacks patience to wait a few years before they can realize tangible
benefits. The community expects to get profits over night and life changing interventions in one
day. This lead to discouragement and lack of acceptance.
In response, participants commented:  Lake Tanganyika conservation project staff said that developing ownership is a difficult slow
process—despite engagement and other relevant stakeholders, communities have still not
accepted project as their own.  Forests which should have been coffee farms have been invaded by cattle grazers, because
political leaders want to get popularity and support from this wealthy people they harbor them and
protect them whenever their interests are jeopardized.  In this reality beekeeping cannot thrive.  Honey value chains must be studied – farming, quality controls, collection, grading, packaging to
increase values and profitability of beekeeping to encourage beekeepers and community to see it
as viable income generating activity.
Gender: Participants noted factors responsible for the lack of full participation of women:  Male dominance – she noted that even in the debriefing meeting there were only 3 women
 Because of the culture, addressing gender requires cultural intervention – e.g., women have to get
permission from their spouses to participate in community activities  Family demands – being a care taker for the whole family, women are ofen overwhelmed by
family demands and fail to participate even when they are given chances to participate  Jealousy – men cannot allow their spouse because of jealousy
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 56
DISTRICT COUNCIL TECHNICAL STAFFS
Regeneration of previously degraded forests has improved. Watersheds have improved through
improvement in conservation, e.g., where rivers used to dry up in the past. The overflight in the
airplane was very useful, to see deforestation and human activities. “Only in a plane can you see the
real problem.”
JGI facilitated the formulation of District bylaws in Kigoma, Mpanda, Uvinza and Nsimbo. Bylaws
are not yet approved at the national level. Harmonization of understanding of village bylaws and
other governing laws is needed. Magistrates should be involved in the project for effective
enforcement of by laws. Magistrates need to be made aware of the bylaws.
Political interference occurs due to ignorance, misconceptions, and interests of opposing factions.
Corruption is everywhere, but Forest Monitors are very faithful. No one can cross villages with logs
of trees without being arrested. Also members of the community would call district authorities like
police and DC and report such incidences. What we are seeing is that FMs are being attacked. Big
poachers are not yet a threat. Big time dealers are reported directly reported to the District Forest
Officers for action.
Forest Monitors need material support to be more effective. DCs plan to continue to employ/make
use of them and village leaders can assist using volunteers. The FMs can report to the DC. They do
not need payment because there is participatory forest management. There are not enough FMs.
Village and ward tribunals are law enforcers at community level. With assistance from JGI, the forest
monitors were recruited and trained and are used by the tribunals. The verdicts of tribunals are legal.
They apply across all bylaws by village and districts including fires and illegal forest harvesting. Cases
are reported to the village and ward. FMs report concurrently to village, ward and district forest
officers.
There are two to three groups (village forest monitors, village Environment and Natural Resources
Committees, and the VLUMs). Each of the three groups gets a commission as a percentage of fines
as an incentive for impounding crimes. Good indicators of the functioning of the system reports to
the village and wards are flowing smoothly to the district using mostly phones.
The share of fines divided between village and districts not available. No user fees for forest use by
villages, because villages demarcate their own forest for their own use. Fees from the village forest
also belong to the village. The other reason that fees are not being collected is that the bylaw process
is not complete.
Bylaws are in various stages of approval. Other laws on conservation are being used while waiting
for the bylaws, for example, the water resources act of 1974, although there are conflicts between the
laws, for example, the distances from rivers that activities are permitted. Because Nsimbo split off
from Mpanda it has to develop its own district bylaws. It will not just inherit bylaws from Mpanda.
We look at boundary conflicts in the villages. They are reported by FMs. No conflict implies the
VLUP is doing well. Conflicts are costly to DC. When they are reported it means villages have failed
to resolve and a DC team is dispatched. Not all disputes are reported to the DC. Some are resolved
by Ward and Village tribunals.
The only challenge is that people are not aware of their own bylaws because of memory lapse.
However, public education will support the process, through the village leaders and public meetings.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 57
Interest groups exist but differences can be harmonized by village land use plans which address needs
of different groups.
Checking the continuing in-migration of agro-pastoralists is a challenge because the area is extensive,
migrants do not use roads, and they do not report to DC. Migrants are relatively wealthier and can
use their economic prowess to acquire village land and the DC learns about this much later. “There is
no mechanism in place to check influx and consequent degradation.” Without land use plans, there
is no law you can use to govern agro-pastoralists settling in the villages. It is a national problem also
discussed in parliament. The question raised is where should pastoralists go? But, the underlying
challenge is the absence of land use plans due to lack of resources. The technical staff is there.
DC provided technical support to villages during land use plan, so that use is related to carrying
capacity. Land use plans also are subject to review every 10 years to accommodate population change.
Processing of new applications for land use by immigrants in villages should take the carrying
capacity into consideration.
The Department of Agriculture is encouraging improved agricultural practices to replace shifting
agriculture thereby relieving pressure from forests. Farm inputs like fertilizers have been subsidized
during the last four years. Also, crop rotation is encouraged as way of increasing soil fertility and crop
productivity. Rotation crops include corn, groundnuts, cassava, and millet.
Mpanda and Nsimbo DCs, said that it would be “better to spread to other villages and not limit to
the three VLUPs [each district] supported by JGI. The Councilors see that other villages need
conservation…” “The other reason is that conservation in one place shifts the pressure to other
villages.”
The VLUP process is multi-sectoral, involving almost all departments. It is difficult to change this
because it is a legal requirement and would require a change in the law. Also, the different
departments are needed because they bring their technical insights in the land use planning.
The DC cannot afford to carry out the VLUP and bylaw process. It is possible to do so in phases,
about three villages per year. It will take time. With partners also it is possible. Before JGI came,
TANAPA and also the central government supported the process in few villages. Cost estimates
varied from about TSh 30 million to 75 million per village. Cost cover the actual survey using GPS
but it involves a lot of people. It starts with the whole village followed by demarcation by surveyors.
Demarcation of land for the conservation of forests and wildlife was difficult for DC to do it because
of the costs involved. “Without JGI support this would have been impossible”.
In the old villages the process for completing the final steps of the plan will be shorter. But we need
to move to new villages so that we eventually increase CCRO coverage. CCRO is step 7 and step 8 is
villages using CCROs as collaterals to access money as loans from financial institutions.
VLUPs have been able to access support from other organizations/projects, e.g. Concern Worldwide
The UN administers the refugee camp, which has been there since 1972. The refugees often leave
the camp and cross into village land to make charcoal or farms. When they are apprehended, they are
reported to the UN, but the working relationship between the UN and the district level is not that
good.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 58
Village game scouts also report on fires and illegal tree cutting. The indicator is reported fires
especially during the dry season. In the last 4 years, incidence of forest fires has declined.
Early controlled burning fires are done in July. It is not harmful because the grass is not totally dry. It
is initiated on general land and in reserved forests but not encouraged in village forests. The practice
of early fires is not encouraging communities to do the same because they have been told not to.
The fuel efficient stoves (FESs) “technically reduce fuel consumption but our people are doing
business as usual because of the abundance of fuel wood. FEEs are more appreciated by charcoal
users who have to pay for energy”. We know it is fuel efficient, cooks better, smoke free but people
just don’t like to change. They don’t worry about smoke in their eyes and lungs. Most cooking is
done in a small house outside the main house. The FESs are widely spread in villages because fuel
wood is becoming costly due to increasing distances to available forestland. The cost of construction
is negligible. Also with existing regulation cutting trees even from your own forest requires
permission from a forest officer. So FESs become handy with increasing scarcity of fuel wood.
“Schools have become change agents in conservation”
Posters are not everywhere to educate migrants informing pastoralists and others that this is a
boundary crossing. “I like what I saw in Tunduma, boundary between Tanzania and Zambia. The
sign says ‘This is Corruption-Free Country, If you give or take bribe you will be prosecuted’ and there is a picture
showing a guy behind the bars”. As you enter it draws your attention, as do the HIV/AIDS posters.
Posters could also be used to remind people of bylaws.
Although beekeeping has been promoted, securing markets for honey and other bee products is still
problematic.
Water and horticulture is the real opportunity area. The market is there. You must go with proper
training…technologies that do not use up water. Avoid trees that are heavy water feeders. You must
harmonize the laws. Some cultivation at 30 meters from the water source with practices that do not
allow erosion or disturbance [should be permitted]. Use raised ridges, etc. There’s no way to
abandon totally the river’s edge. There may be a conflict with conservation. But the sectors should
sit together. Educate the farmer. Allow diversion of the river. Leave protection paths.
People have been sensitized to form groups. In the groups women are members. Also, women were
trained in nurseries and FESs. Women are joining community based organizations.
Women established income-generating activities as alternatives to charcoal burning. The DC also
supported small businesses like canteens and agriculture without funding from JGI.
DC has been encouraging youths to form groups but it is not linked to micro-credit facilities. For the
youth we earmarked 46,000 acres of land for agricultures and DC is planning support. Within villages
we are encouraging women and youths to form groups to be supported by DC but this is still in the
process.
Eco-tourism was not a success like coffee because it was not linked to the local tourist market.
JGI AND NGO PARTNERS
The savanna is marginal habitat compared to the forest areas where chimps live…off the radar of
almost everybody… The most chimps live in these habitats, but with ranges 20 to 30 times larger
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 59
than the ranges of forest chimps, e.g., the 3 communities in Gombe. Savanna chimps are
different…
District collaboration has been very good. We make sure she knows where we are and what we’re
doing… and if we want a patrol up our way, we have to fund those costs…for fuel and travel
allowances.
VLUPs are effective and are the best ways to get communities on board …but, you need to add in
some kind assessment of the chimps…Are the people protecting the land they say they’re
protecting?…We need some kind of measure.
The VLUP process is the same throughout, but what may vary is how the village takes it and tries to
implement it. There wasn’t something like this before, and now they’re talking about the plan and
about land use. The title deed will give a big hope to those protected areas, because people will settle
anywhere, claiming that they don’t see the boundary. But after everyone has title, there’s no more
excuse… Perception, people perceive things differently and its behavior changing. There’s a certain
plan that you have to follow. People are allowed to use for daily life, without fee, but you’re
supposed to go through VEO, get permission and go to the forest. That change alone, is a mind-set
change.
At present, the Steering Committee is just government, with about 32 members now. Maybe at some
time, we need the local NGOs, but let us get government talking first... If you introduce NGOS, the
talking may not take place.
Part of Tongwe West is being protected by Tongwe Trust. [The Trust told the district] “We know
from experience if we give it to you it will be degraded.” JGI provided funds to identify general land.
People were settling on the general land and destroying forest. So Flora and Fauna International
(FFI) helped Tongwe Trust in setting up a reserve. They monitor. It’s intact because Tongwe Trust
is there. They’ve collected all of this contraband and incidents. But Tongwe Trust had money from
FFI, and now there is a conflict, because the forest is legally general land…There will be a turf battle.
JGI has contracted Development Impact (DI) to train communities on transparency and on
community members’ rights to question and comment…with reports a notice board for all to read
and a system of meeting where the VG reports back to the community…They can also question
village leaders…Tanzania is in a critical stage now, where we are losing our values for social integrity.
People have become tolerant of misconduct. People must learn how to say no. People are tolerated
when they mishandle public resources more than when it’s private. Our focus at the local level
should be at the household level to empower households, but a community is a sum of households,
so things have to be done at the village level… We still need more training and capacity building. We
need to help strengthen collective empowerment, but the leaders need to be trained as well…
Politics is there forever. It’s the bloodlines of the people here. There are still some difficulties, but it
won’t be there for long… The issues have to be worked through in a public meeting.
Our PRA reports are more detailed…but with the VLUP, we followed the guidelines, because it goes
to the [central government], because they want to see you’ve followed it and thus will approve it.
JGI did not carry out PRAs during the last four years.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 60
JGI took national leaders around to see the problems with industrial uses—salt and tobacco drying.
The law has provisions for an environmental audit, with legally defined procedures, which they are
now following.
The JGI Forestry Advisor participated on the national fire management task force. [Comment: The
task force had difficulty in making things happen…emails flying around asking for input, but little
progress…]
The Districts have asked for logistical support to go to Dodoma to follow up on district by-law
approval in person, which is needed to move things along. The GOT has not released the
budget…they are late. Civil servants received salaries in August. Even last year the government
allocations had been reduced…because of the revision of constitution, priorities have shifted from
the districts, but that’s temporary.
It’s important that the District and Region have the same language…all they’re envisioning is how
they can make money to flow through their accounts. Sixty percent of their income is through
extractive uses…
Tangible income is very minimal…even from timber. In remote forest, getting high quality timber to
market is a challenge …the fines are not coming by. Sometimes the enforcement is not being done,
so the fines aren’t coming in…So there isn’t tangible benefit.
If you’re doing livelihood, the opportunities are specific to a place and an area…e.g., you can’t do
coffee everywhere. Using criteria is a good thing, but each community has a unique set of
characteristics and opportunities have to conform to the various characteristics of each place.
Once you have better products, you can find markets. We worked on fish quality control standards
with the help of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Quality Control Inspector…We’ve started
with fish drying racks—8 racks of 20 meters… a lot have started on their own. Community
members have started doing their own drying racks…Those fish dried on the racks sell at a higher
price, because of the quality. Some people build and rent out racks.
The first thing the project can do is to look into the value chain but we must promote, first,
environmentally friendly opportunities, e.g., beekeeping, which requires a forest with the flowers of a
closed canopy forest [rather than a degraded forest]. Still, the flowers bloom when they want…
People themselves learn about how things fit or not. For example, with beekeeping, “Ah, ants are
not friends to bees”…or “ah, there wasn’t much water available”…or “not much flowers around”…
Since JGI staff members are conservationists, they address the livelihoods and other aspects by
partnering with others. JGI would “jump on the moving train.” In the case of coffee, people came
to them, looking for the source of their distinctive coffee after cupping in Europe. As JGI had no
coffee specialist and they had no marketing specialist, they followed what Green Mountain and others
told them. Similarly, JGI plans to explore mangos, if investors do indeed develop a processing plant
in Mbeya or Sumbawanga. For mango processing, JGI plans to identify individual farmers…instead
of communal level projects.
While ecotourism is not yet ready and even Gombe cannot run by itself…because the value chain for
Kigoma is difficult, nonetheless, Kigoma is growing. The GOT will be investing in enlarging the
airport, and it is a good time now to begin “preparing the communities” so they are ready when
tourism does increase.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 61
Oil palm was supported under TACARE. We thought we needed to increase production, because
the trees were old and not high-yielding. But the oil palm brought in was not adapted well. So we
came up with the idea of a local hybrid. But because of past experience, the farmer uptake of the
new variety was very low.
The mistake was that we started with production, when there was a dormant production that wasn’t
selling well. Maybe the entry point should have been the processing. Tanzania is importing a lot of
palm oil from Malaysia… A processing plant may have increased demand, but still, there are cost and
efficiency constraints. Kigoma gets only 1100 to 1200 mm of rain a year, much less than Malaysia’s
2000 mm. And, we don’t want to turn all riverine forest into oil palm…
JGI is one of the few conservation organizations that is willing to work with agriculture directly. “It
is necessary: if you don’t confront the disease directly, how will you find a cure?”
FZS has supported 53 savings group, whose members self-select themselves. There can be more
than one group per village. FZS works in just seven villages, with 12 technical staff. There ae two
field offices in villages and one in the Mahale National Park. Because they live in remote places,
often staff keep family elsewhere, and staff goes for short leaves more frequently. In each village
there are up to (and ideally) three community-member trainers who support these groups. The
Forest Monitors, too, are three to a village.
FZS has modified the VICOBA model and modified it to our environment. It’s different from the
SACCOs model. You can change few things. With VICOBA, the groups can decide what they are
supposed to do…flexible…even the kind of members they choose has to be the group decision.
There is no age restriction…one member almost 75 years old. Slowly, people help you, and slowly
you learn, so you cooperate with everyone. You have to present your project to the group so they
know what they’re funding you for in that village. They give you proper criticism… They check
themselves…You have to learn through that business…but all the members help you follow the
procedures. When you start, you wonder, “Will I be able to do this?” There is attitude change
among those participating in the groups. People who have the courage to move the extra mile.
The criteria for investment include not investing in extractive activities, such as charcoal production.
They have invested in fish-drying racks and other value-added activities but many take loans for
simple trading.
The VICOBAs now have a lot of money and opportunities to go big. If someone goes big, and
something goes wrong, then the repercussions are huge. We’re trying to work with the government,
the Small Industry Development Organization (SIDO) of GOT. They have small machines, even for
palm oil or soap… When you have the capital, the technology is there. When it is too technical, it
won’t work. We want to approach slowly. You have to be careful what you introduce. If you move
slowly, there’s a good chance. And give them confidence. They feel independent. It’s all their
money. We didn’t give them anything. They are working hard because it’s theirs. The villages are
different; even the tone is different. They don’t do cash crops in this area. To find that commitment
is difficult. We’ve developed that slowly, because it’s something they’re not used to. You work with
a few individuals who you think can move with you together.
The failure of a group is in leadership. If you go to a meeting these days, people will ask serious
questions. They’re holding a meeting to explain expenditure … change is driven by different drivers.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 62
Most of the VICOBA members know that commitment is not just talking; you have to do
something. You now find them in the school boards [and other groups].
The Village Scout [comparable to a Forest Monitor] is also VICOBA member. This gives them a
chance. If you stand alone, people will fear you. So sometimes, scouts feel they have special
powers… you work with the police. But through the VICOBA, it moderates that influence…keeps
you at same level. We try to channel everything through the government.
No formal cross-exchanges between “FZS” and “JGI” villages, but they do talk with each other, and
the northern villages working with FZS are asking for JGI’s program to expand southward into their
area.
Recently, we sent all the community leaders to the northern village in Bitale to learn from the JGI
area, so they could learn… This changed a lot of their understanding.
The JGI project should carry out some self-reflection and assessment periodically.
The JGI project seems to have little interest in sharing and partnering [beyond meetings], e.g., when
working on the ground, if [JGI staff] are passing by, why not stop by and share with us some of what
they’ve learned. Partnership could be better. It’s a two-way street. I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of
interest [in taking the time to reflect together.] It’s in everybody’s interest to protect the ecosystem.
The uploaded data goes to Virginia60. Who uses and who does what with it isn’t clear.
“The women will be the next drivers of change in this country.” You get to the woman of the house
and explain her schedule, and the six or seven children…and the man might not know how any of
them will be fed, but the woman will [make it happen].
VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS
Coffee
Kanyovu Cooperative is a joint enterprise of 12 primary cooperatives. The largest has 1,700
members and the smallest has about 150 members. Together they have 7,000 coffee
producer/farmer members out of an estimated overall 13,000 coffee producers in the area. As a
cooperative, it’s a voluntary organization…any one can join, provided that they agree to accept the
rules and regulations of the coop, which is organized under the Cooperative Act. The coop had less
than 2,000 members in 2002. Producers have become convinced by the power of joining together to
sell in larger volume.
The coop has been advising its farmer members to practice mixed farming, including bananas, fruits,
[i.e., a diversified base] in addition to coffee.
Kanyovu produces 10,000 tons of parchment coffee (packed in 50 kg bags), which with about a 17%
weight loss after dry milling at the facility in Kigoma, results in about 8,300 tons of dried beans for
sale to roasters (packed in 60 kg bags). [That is enough to fill about 460 shipping containers.]
Kanyovu supports the post-harvest processing and quality control. Kanyovu has received support
for quality improvement and good agricultural practices (GAP) from various sources, including JGI,
60 In fact, the data is uploaded to the Google cloud.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 63
which initiated support in 2006, followed by Sustainable Harvest (which helped on the export side),
and Coffee Management Services (Nairobi, Kenya), all through Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs). District extension officers support farm-level production. However, most are not experts
in coffee. [One informant noted that “Even the extension officers at the District level don’t
understand coffee production that well…”]
Kanyovu sells through two channels—direct export and by auction with the Tanzania Coffee Board.
Kanyovu uses two types of contracts for export. For an FOB contract, they take from mill to export
warehouse and then to the port in Dar. For an “ex-warehouse” contract, the buyer comes here in
town… Kanyovu bears the risk from the dry mill to the warehouse, and once at the warehouse, they
call the buyer and verify the stock and he will have arranged the truck… For FOB, they have added
up the costs, and can make judgments accordingly.
At the Coffee Board Auctions, sometimes the prices for certified and uncertified coffees are about
equal. Kanyovu has not been able to convince its member coops to support the cost of certification,
which are largely the payment of an audit fee, required for both Fair Trade and forest-friendly (i.e.,
social and environmental) certifications. Most groups in Tanzania that have certified their products
have done so through donor support. JGI had some of the coop leaders to go to Rwanda and they
saw how overall quality control was done there, and tried to copy some of the techniques done over
there.
The quality initiative began in 2006, and later Sustainable Harvest entered into an agreement with JGI
and agreed to market the coffee if they managed effectively for high quality. They connected the
growers with buyers and roasters from different parts of the world. Through this, selected members
were taken to Kigoma town for about one-month, in different trainings—logistics and procedures
from receiving up to [getting it ready for shipment], including trainings of trainers.
Kanyovu has 23 wet processing units—washing stations under the management of the primary
coops. “The managers of the washing stations are chosen by the farmers themselves. During the
pre-season, we call the meeting and all farmers are asked to attend. We agree on the principle and
procedures. The farmer must obey the agreed rules, or his coffee will not be accepted. For the
procedures, we selected the management team that would ensure enforcement. We have different
managers. We have the receiving manager, the drying table manager, the flotation manager, and the
operator of mill for removing the shells…” There is also an overall manager. All are elected by the
farmers themselves. The receiving manager (“he or she”) is “responsible to make sure it’s been
collected (picked) on the same day…[they] need training so they can differentiate the coffee that’s
been picked the day before. If [it’s been picked] within the agreed time, then they spread it out… [on
different materials—didn’t follow up].” The farmer learns quality control by doing. “The farmer
himself has to sort it out… the unripe and the bitten and the over-ripe cherries… then the farmer
(under the supervision of the floating manager) has to remove the floaters…” The coffee is dried on
wood frames with wire mesh… After flotation, they use a [Colombian-made] Penagos mill for
removing the [pulp?] from the red cherries. “Then we do fermentation for almost 24 hours so that
the mucilage can be removed, by washing, and then after washing we take to the drying tables and
use direct sun for 14 days, then we pack it in the bags in parchment…
“Now, we are doing marketing on our own. Some new buyers are coming. They began and we’re
selling mostly to USA, but we also have sold to ECOM, a Swiss-based organization, and another is
Coffee Domain International, based in Singapore.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 64
“We have our own Taste of Harvest (season-wide) in Africa (in the Tanzanian Chapter competition,
we won first place in 2008, 2009 and 2013.) Through those exhibitions, we are known to buyers…
The coffee laboratory is important in managing coffee quality. Samples and record-keeping is very
well-organized. “To ensure our coffee is [high] quality, we established the laboratory, funded by
JGI…it’s difficult to assess that the coffees are all consistent. You have to put together coffee [that
has been collected” for three days or even one week, take a sample, and take to laboratory and cup it
and award some scores. Again, the following week, take samples, cup, and score… Then, after
finishing now, all the coffee at the washing stations were given dates. After being dried enough, the
manager has to write the date of production. The lab technician writes the report to ensure that [all
of] the coffee of a certain date [is identified] and then combined in one lot. Those which have
another score [are kept separate]…” They used to take one score (e.g., 84 and above) and then take
83 and below as another group. “Even during the dry milling, we receive those coffees, after being
sorted out. We keep the lots segregated…”
Normally, the differences notable are in the dates collected. Differences in quality from the different
locations are usually traceable to the processing at the washing station. “If a larger amount, you may
find it’s not well managed, from the Pentagos to fermentation to drying…” They will further
“segregate based on bean size and things like that.”
In Tanzania, suppliers don’t always keep their commitments, so buyers often decide to invest in other
countries. Farmers can’t understand why they should honor a prior agreement to deliver at a lower
price… ‘Oh, my friend, I was paid so, but he was paid [thus]…’ The coop is trading on their behalf,
but still faces this same challenge. ‘My dear farmers, for this reason, we will be selling for this
price…’
Ecotourism
A manager for the tented camp in Gombe National Park suggested that “ecotourism is not yet ready”
because there are still few tourists coming to Kigoma. Even the tented camp had only ten visitors in
the last two months. He felt the Gombe tourism “product is good,” but would not look into
community-based tourism until occupancies were better
Those interviewed mentioned the following principles:  The community’s biggest problem will be the equitable sharing of benefits. If the whole
community does not support the initiative, success is not likely.  The community “mustn’t do anything” special, e.g., it shouldn’t construct a visitors’ center. What
the tourist wants is a glimpse of everyday life—a visit to a real-world traditional house (nice with a
thatched roof), a sampling of the local food, meeting the members of a family, watching people do
the activities to satisfy their everyday needs—drying fish, mending nets, making palm oil, making
soap, and the like.  The community must ensure that its members welcome the taking of photos. He noted that he’s
never seen such an aggressive response from people asking for money for taking their photo.
Such attitudes would lead to failure.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 65
 Similarly, the community can’t charge for each little piece of the visit experience. The fees must
be reasonable. He suggested that $10/person would be a reasonable fee that would not
discourage visitors from coming. Of course, the purchase of handicrafts would be additional.  The income from tourism can be from a fee, or the community can charge no fee and simply ask
for a donation.
3. BACKGROUND DATA ON VALUE CHAINS: COFFEE AND HONEY SALES61
Production and Sales for Konyovu Cooperative
Season Production Total Sales Average Price/Kg Nr of
members
Average income
(Tons) (TSh) (TSh)
Seasons before
2009 combined
5,057.5 7,592,120,000
2009/2010 933.2 3,191,050,000 3,420 11,000 290,095
2010/2011 943.2 4,749,200,000 4,400 11,000 431,745
2011/2012 952.6 6,749,400,000 7,850 11,000 613,582
2012/2013 1,275.3 5,441,180,895 4,500 11,000 494,653
2013/2014 Sales in progress Sales in progress
Total 9,161.8 27,722,950,895
Honey Production and Marketing from Uvinza
Group No.
members
No. members Production per year
2011 2012 2013 2014
Uwata 50 50 (M36, F14) 52 100 100
Sosegwa 12 12 (M10, F2) 1,120 600 1,560 420
Tumaini 26 26 (M20, F 6) 4,400 5,230 12,200 520
Total membership 88
Total collection in liters 5,520 5,882 13,860 1,040
Price/litre 4,000 4,000 5,000 5,500
Total Income 22,080,000 23,528,000 69,300,000 5,720,000
Average income/person 250,909 267,364 787,500 65,000
Income (liters*price) 22,080,000 23,528,000 69,300,000 5,720,000
Average (income/members) 250,909 267,364 787,500 65,000
61 Source: The Jane Goodall Institute, including honey data that originated from Mr. Maximillian Kimpanti of Uvinza
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 66
4.BACKGROUND DATA ON FOREST PATROLS BYVILLAGE62
62 The Jane Goodall Institute
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 67
ANNEX E. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Table E-1: Status of the Village Land Use Plan Process by Village
District Village
Visited by
Evaluation
Team
Bordering
forest reserve
Step 1: District￾level Prep
Step 2: PRA
completed
Step 3: Use Map
Completed
Step 4a: First Draft
Plan/ Bylaws
Step 4c:
Village
approval
District
Approval
Village Area
(has.)
Village
Popu-lation
Kigoma Bitale Jul-10 Jul-10 Jul-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Aug-10 2,167 6,341
Kigoma Bubango 23-Aug Gombe Apr-07 Apr-07 Apr-07 Apr-07 May-07 Oct-08 4,640 2,883
Kigoma Bugamba May-08 May-08 May-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jun-08 3,699 2,562
Mpanda Bugwe 12-Aug Tongwe W Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Not Yet 40,816 2,049
Uvinza Chakulu Masito Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 20,827 5,284
Kigoma Chankabwimba Dec-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Jan-12 2,580 5,269
Kigoma Chankele 7-Aug Gombe Mar-08 Mar-08 Mar-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 Oct-08 2,434 2,714
Uvinza Ilagala 20-Aug Masito May-08 May-08 May-08 May-08 Jun-08 Sep-09 23,907 26,678
Kigoma Kagongo Jul-05 Jul-05 Jul-05 Jul-05 Jul-05 Oct-08 1,300 3,913
Kigoma Kagunga Jul-08 Jul-08 Jul-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 4,237 10,600
Kigoma Kalalangabo 531 1,983
Uvinza Kalenge Sep-06 Nov-11 Nov-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 7,220 11,578
Kigoma Kalinzi 19-Aug Feb-08 Feb-08 Feb-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Oct-08 3,947 10,302
Uvinza Kandaga Sep-06 Nov-11 Nov-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 5,145 5,301
Uvinza Karago Tongwe W 10,134
Uvinza Kaseke Oct-12 Oct-12 Oct-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Nov-12 4,979 11,649
Nsimbo Kasisi Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Sep-11 7,984 2,264
Uvinza Kasuku 21-Aug Jun-12 Jun-12 Jun-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Jul-12 2,880 7,599
Nsimbo Katambike 9-Aug Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Sep-11 26,555 4,260
Uvinza Kazuramimba 15-Aug Masito Sep-04 Jul-09 Jul-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 8,996 25,513
Kigoma Kidahwe
Kigoma Kigalye 18-Aug Dec-09 Dec-09 Dec-09 Dec-09 Sep-09 Sep-09 1,300 3,913
Uvinza Kirando 20-Aug Tongwe W Apr-08 Apr-08 Apr-08 Apr-08 May-08 Sep-09 14,637 8,877
Kigoma Kizenga Dec-10 Dec-10 Dec-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Jan-11 2,207 7,215
Kigoma Kiziba May-08 May-08 May-08 May-08 May-08 Oct-08 3,951 6,443
Uvinza Lyabusende Tongwe W Apr-08 Apr-08 Apr-08 Apr-08 May-08 Sep-09 5,828 3,003
Kigoma Mahembe 3,526 8,095
Mpanda Majalila Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Mar-12 13,350 4,009
Uvinza Malagarasi Masito Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 29,023 16,629
Uvinza Matendo 4,947 7,832
Kigoma Matyazo Aug-10 Aug-10 Aug-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Sep-10 2,377 7,987
Kigoma Mgaraganza Gombe Sep-08 Sep-08 Sep-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Oct-08 2,505 4,640
Kigoma Mkabogo Aug-10 Aug-10 Aug-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Sep-10 4,230 9,137
Kigoma Mkigo Nov-08 Nov-09 Nov-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Oct-08 3,398 6,958
Kigoma Mkongoro Jun-10 Jun-10 Jun-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Jul-10 2,840 8,965
Nsimbo Mnyamasi Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Sep-11 11,719 2,035
Kigoma Mtanga Gombe Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 Oct-08 983 4,225
Uvinza Mwakizega Masito 14,624 20,348
Kigoma Mwamgongo 16-Aug Gombe Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 Jun-07 Nov-07 Oct-08 2,225 5,516
Uvinza Mwamila Masito May-08 May-08 May-08 May-08 Jun-08 Sep-09 5,938 1,894
Kigoma Nkungwe Dec-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 Dec-11 Not Yet 4,764 9,400
Kigoma Nyamhoza Dec-10 Dec-10 Dec-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Jan-11 3,004 6,977
Uvinza Nyamoli Oct-12 Oct-12 Oct-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Nov-12 3,990 3,764
Kigoma Nyarubanda Nov-08 Nov-09 Nov-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Oct-08 3,637 9,294
Uvinza Pamila
Uvinza Sigunga Tongwe W Jun-13 Jun-13 Jun-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Jul-13 11,215
Uvinza Simbo Tongwe W Jun-12 Jun-12 Jun-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Jul-12 3,593 8,638
Uvinza Songambele Masito Dec-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Sep-09 7,856 5,093
Uvinza Sunuka Tongwe W Mar-08 Mar-08 Mar-08 Mar-08 Mar-08 Oct-09 12,545 8,916
Uvinza Uvinza Masito Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 Dec-02 17,606 16,629
Mpanda Vikonge 11-Aug Tongwe W Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Mar-12 65,559 6,341
Kigoma Zashe Jul-08 Jul-08 Jul-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Oct-08 2,708 6,372
GMU Project Consolidation Village = Villages in which the project planned to consolidate VLUP implementation
Bordering forest reserve (= Yes) = Villages that border Tonge East or West or Gombe
GMU-supported VLUP = VLUP prepared during GMU project period
Follow-on Project VLUP Preparation Village = Villages that the follow-on project plans to help complete VLUPs
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 68
Table E-2: VLUP content analysis for villages visited63
Village Economic
Context
Land Uses Destructive
Practices
Threats/
Challenges
Use rights
specified
64 User
benefits
and costs65 Collective- choice
arrangements66 Monitoring67 Sanctions68 Conflict- Resolution69 Bubango Farming
(Cassava,
Beans, Corn,
Sweet
potatoes,
Ground nuts
and Palm)
Petty trading
Agriculture
and limited
animal
keeping
(Chicken,
Goats and
Cattle)
Arson,
shifting
cultivation,
charcoal
burning and
cutting trees
for fuel
wood and
timber
Poor soil
fertility, lack of
pasture,
Arson, lack of
fuel wood and
soil erosion
None
specified
None
specified
VLUM,
Village
Council and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by by￾laws with
restrictions on
fire, extractive
uses, and
exploitation of
wildlife. Violators
will be fined
TSh10,000 to
50,000.
Done by
village
council
Ilagala Farming
(Cassava,
Beans, Corn,
Rice, Sweet
potatoes,
Ground nuts
and Palm,
Vegetables)
Petty trading
Agriculture,
Fishing and
limited
animal
keeping
(Chicken,
Goats,
Sheep and
Cattle)
Migration of
animal
keepers
from
neighboring
regions,
Charcoal
burning,
shifting
cultivation
Limited
capacity of
Village council
to implement
and manage
land use
plans,
unreliable
weather,
traditions of
overstocking
None
specified
None
specified
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
bylaw with
restrictions Fine
not exceeding
50000 will be
charged for
Done by
village
council
Kalinzi Cash crops
(coffee,
VLUP
designates
5 main
VLUP
identifies
Poor
VLUP
identifies Lack
of reliable
VLUP
specifies
some None
specified
VLUP does not specify criteria
for VLUM
Monitoring
is not
described in
Zoning of land
according to the
VLUP, with by- Conflict
management
not described
63 A VLUP for Bugwe has not yet been prepared. The team did not review the VLUP for its field test site of Chankele. 64 Degree to which the VLUP clearly defines boundaries and rights to harvest resources
65 Proportionality the VLUP specifies (or not) between benefits (products that a user is allocated) and costs (the rules requiring labor, materials, and/or money
inputs)—and the degree to which the VLUP relates these to local conditions
66 Whether (and, if so, how) the VLUP specifies the inclusion of individuals affected by harvesting and protection rules in the group who can modify these rules
67Team’s findings on what is monitored (e.g., the bio-physical conditions and/or user behaviors) and degree to which the monitors are accountable to the users
(and/or are the users) 68 Degree to which the VLUP’s sanctions are graduated (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) and Team’s findings on how these sanctions are
applied to violators. Note that Sanctions and conflict resolution are guided by Local Government Act No. 7 and 8 of 1982 section 163 and 167 as amended in section
7 of 1998 under section 38. 69 Team’s findings and/or VLUP’s description of conflict management mechanisms
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 69
Village Economic
Context
Land Uses Destructive
Practices
Threats/
Challenges
Use rights
specified
64 User
benefits
and costs65 Collective- choice
arrangements66 Monitoring67 Sanctions68 Conflict- Resolution69 bananas,
tomatoes,
cabbage,
pineapple,
sweet
potatoes,
cassava)
Livestock
(cattle, goat,
sheep)
Petty trading
uses, with
by-laws for
each:
Agriculture
Settlement
Grazing
Forest
Water source
catchment
farming
techniques,
and soil
erosion
VLUM
members
also
identified
arson and
cutting trees
for fuel
wood
water supply,
poor soil
fertility, poor
market
access, and
need to
purchase
timber from
outside of
village
VLUM
members
identified
inadequate
grazing land
during dry
season
respon- sibilities
but not
rights.
membership or
related
decision- making
positions.
VLUP
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
VLUPs
laws and
restrictions
specified for each
zone. Fines for
most violations
are for TSh
10,000-50,000
and/or 12 months
imprisonment.
(No cases of
imprisonment
were found.)
in VLUP,
although
courts are
mentioned
once. Conflicts are
reportedly
resolved by
village
council.
Kasuku Agriculture
(corn, beans,
bananas,
rice, nuts,
palm,
cassava and
sweet
potatoes
fruits and
vegetable)
and petty
trading
Agriculture
and animal
keeping on
a small
scale
Cutting
trees for fuel
wood,
timber and
charcoal,
shifting
cultivation,
Increasing
population,
poor soil
fertility,
Immigration
and Arson
None
specified
None
specified
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
by-laws with
restrictions Fine
from 10,000- 50,000 will be
charged for
contravening the
by-laws.
Compensation for
any damage
caused e.g.
livestock grazing
on crops
Done by
village
council
Katambike Mining (gold
and copper),
fishing,
animal
husbandry
and
agriculture
(vegetable
gardens,
cassava,
nuts, sweet
VLUP
identifies:
Agriculture
Housing
Grazing
Forest
Water sources
Fuel wood,
charcoal
making,
Arson,
Logging
Immigration
from
neighboring
regions, and
logging
Limited water
for drinking
and for
livestock
VLUP
specifies
some
respon- sibilities
but not
rights.
VLUP
specifies
obligation
to
contribute
to road
mainte- nance
VLUP specifies
criteria for
VLUM
membership,
including
residency,
knowledge of
“Swahili and the
local language”,
literacy and
numeracy,
VLUP
specifies
that VLUM
is
responsible
for
monitoring
the VLUP
Zoning of land
according to the
VLUP, with by￾laws and
restrictions
specified for each
zone. Fines for
most forest
violations are for
TSh 50,000 with
confiscation of
Done by
village
council
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 70
Village Economic
Context
Land Uses Destructive
Practices
Threats/
Challenges
Use rights
specified
64 User
benefits
and costs65 Collective- choice
arrangements66 Monitoring67 Sanctions68 Conflict- Resolution69 potatoes,
rice, tobacco, corn
sorghum)
and petty
trading
equal
representa-tion
of men and
women, etc.
products; no
imprisonment
specified. Other
violations
between TSh
15,000 and
50,000,
sometimes with
possibility of
imprisonment.
Kazuramimba Agriculture
(vegetables
corn, sweet
potatoes,
rice, and
petty trading
Agriculture
and animal
husbandry
Arson,
cultivation
on steep
slopes
Soil erosion,
arson,
None
specified
None
specified
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
bylaw with
restrictions Fine
Done by
village
council
Kigalye Fishing, Petty
Trading and
Farming
(Corn,
Cassava, Oil
Palm, Beans
and
Potatoes)
Agriculture Arson
Shifting
Cultivation
Deforestatio
n (fuel,
building and
timber)
Farming on
steep slopes
(erosion and
landslides)
Poor NRM by
village council
Inadequate
community
knowledge on
sustainable
land use
Poor
relationship
between
Gombe NP
and the village
Lack of
alternative
sources of fuel
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
bylaw with
restrictions Fine
Done by
village
council
Kirando Farming
(corn, nuts,
bananas,
palm, sweet
potatoes and
rice) and
fishing
Agriculture
and small
scale animal
husbandry
Village
council lack
capacity to
manage
land use,
culture and
tradition for
keeping a
large herd of
cattle
Cutting trees
for fuel wood
and charcoal,
None
specified
None
specified
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
by-laws, with
restrictions and
fines of 5,000- 50,000. Supreme
(national) law
may apply
depending on the
level and kind of
Done by
village
council
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 71
Village Economic
Context
Land Uses Destructive
Practices
Threats/
Challenges
Use rights
specified
64 User
benefits
and costs65 Collective- choice
arrangements66 Monitoring67 Sanctions68 Conflict- Resolution69 offence
Mwamgongo Farming
(corn,
cassava,
palm, sweet
potatoes and
beans) and
fishing
Agriculture
and animal
keeping
primarily
goats
Poverty,
lack of fertile
farmland
Arson, Fuel
wood and
Charcoal
burning
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
LUPs and
enforced by the
bylaw with
restrictions Fine
not exceeding
50,000. No
imprisonment of
any kind for
violation of
bylaws
Done by
village
council
Vikonge Farming
(corn, rice,
cassava,
millet, beans,
vegetables
and tobacco),
and Animal
keeping
mainly cattle
VLUP has
by-laws for
the following
land use
zones: Residential
Agriculture
Forestry
Water
resources Grazing
Wildlife
Logging and
Arson
Conflicts
between
farmers and
cattle herders
None
specified
VLUP
specifies
general
obligation
to
contribute
to develop- ment
activities
VLUP specifies
that VLUM
“committee” is
accountable to
village council
and village
council is
accountable to
village
assembly; also
specifies a
water
committee
VLUM and
Forest
Monitors are
responsible
for
monitoring
LUPs
Zoning of land
according to
VLUP, with by￾laws and
restrictions for
each zone. Fines
for most violations are TSh 10,000- 50,000.
Whenever
necessary, fines
have to be paid
instantly.
Done by
village
council
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the GMU Project 72
ANNEX F: SOURCES OF INFORMATION
1. INFORMANTS MET
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Alice Macharia JGI Director for East Africa
Programs
JGI/USA F
Tammy Palmer JGI Vice President, Africa Programs JGI/USA F
Anthony Collins JGI Director, Baboon Research Gombe Stream
Research Center
M
Freddy Kimaro JGI Interim Executive Director Dar es Salaam M
Aristides A. Kashula JGI DFO Kigoma M
Jovin R. Lwehabura JGI GEO Tech Kigoma M
John R Lugarura JGI GEP TNR Kigoma M
Mary Mavanza JGI Governance officer Kigoma F
Fadhili Mlacha JGI LUPC Kigoma M
Emmanuel Mtiti JGI Program Director Kigoma M
Shadrack Kamyori JGI ROST Kigoma M
Anifa D. John Gombe National Park Gombe F
Noelia Myonga Gombe National Park Chief Park Warden Gombe F
John Runahi Kigoma DC Kigoma M
Teesya Urassa Kigoma DC Community Development
Officer
Kigoma F
Maya I Mlangi Kigoma DC DEO Kigoma F
Iddi Ndabhona Kigoma DC District Legal Solicitor Kigoma M
Eng.Jabiri Kayilla Kigoma DC DWE Kigoma M
Alberto Ntumbala Kigoma DC Acting DLDO Kigoma M
Batnos Ngailo Kigoma DC Acting DLNRO Kigoma M
Pambila Godwin Kigoma DC Community planning officer Kigoma M
Ismail Kamsige Kigoma DC DFO Kigoma M
Fidelis Katama Kigoma DC District Environmental Officer Kigoma M
Musa Y. Nkindwa Kigoma DC Land Officer Kigoma M
Casbert Kigoma DC District Cooperative Officer Kigoma DC M
Joshua Elisha Kigoma Region District Administrative Secretary Kigoma M
Lauteli Kanoni Katavi Region Regional Administrative
Secretary
Mpanda M
Augustine Mathias Katavi Region Wildlife Advisor Officer Mpanda M
Tibenderana Justin Mpanda DC Mpanda M
Godbless I.Mshomi Mpanda DC Mpanda M
Filbert .S. Nguvumali Mpanda DC Mpanda M
Epaphras Tenganamba Mpanda DC Mpanda M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 73
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Justin Tibenderana Mpanda DC Mpanda M
Demitrus Kamtoni Mpanda DC Acting DLNRO Mpanda F
Josephine Rupia Mpanda DC Acting DLNRO Mpanda F
Malaka Morisho Mpanda DC Acting DS, Legal Officer Mpanda M
Sako M Mwok Mpanda DC DEMO Mpanda M
Lucas S Nyambala Mpanda DC DFO Mpanda M
Mayugwa Tumaini Mpanda DC Land Officer II Mpanda M
Anthony J. Sijimbi Mpanda DC WEO Mpanda M
Enock S. Msengi Nsimbo DC Acting DLO Nsimbo M
Lebai A.Swalo Nsimbo DC Acting BEO Nsimbo M
Shabani Matwili Nsimbo DC Acting DLNRO Nsimbo M
Amani G.Ntibakazi Nsimbo DC Acting DSEO Nsimbo M
Cesilia Mathias Nsimbo DC Assistant Land Officer Nsimbo F
Yuster Cassian Nsimbo DC CDO Nsimbo F
Vicente F Kasukumpa Nsimbo DC DEMO Nsimbo M
Rodrick P. Ntulo Nsimbo DC DFO Nsimbo M
Florentina Ilumba Nsimbo DC DLNREO Nsimbo F
Mugetam Masambu Nsimbo DC Land Officer Nsimbo M
Ntengo Nb Nsimbo DC Surveyor Nsimbo M
Juma A Mkondo Uvinza DC Acting DLNREO Uvinza M
Phillip P. Francis Uvinza DC Agricultural Development Officer Uvinza M
Petronila B Gwakila Uvinza DC DEMO Uvinza F
Kishela Siulapwa Uvinza DC DFO Uvinza M
Mr J. Kombe Uvinza DC District Executive Director Uvinza M
Manyama Makongo Uvinza DC Land Officer Uvinza M
Bernard Rusomyo Uvinza DC Uvinza M
Juma Jafari Rubaba Village government Chairperson Bubango M
Frank K. Msana Village government VEO Bubango M
Alphonce Sungura Beekeepers group member Bugwe M
Abdallah Kakoso Village government Chairperson Bugwe M
Leonard Same Village government Hamlet chairperson Bugwe M
Yasini Benjamini Village government Village Chairperson Bugwe M
Robert Hassan Village government Village representative Bugwe M
Namara Xavery Village government Village representative Bugwe F
Jumanne Mkopi Village government Village representative,
beekeeper member
Bugwe M
Samora Sungura Village government Village representative,
beekeeper member
Bugwe M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 74
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Tanu H Mjejwa Environment
Committee
Environmental officer Ilagala M
Kakozi Amani Environment
Committee
Environmental officer Ilagala M
Rashidi Mathiasi Environment
Committee
Environmental officer
(chairperson)
Ilagala M
Mtundu Ramadhani Village government VEO Ilagala M
Moshi Hasani Village government Village Chairperson Ilagala M
Hamisi Mjejwa Village government Village secretary (mwangu) Ilagala M
Benjamin Cosmas Accountant Ilagala M
Mariam Jafari CHBC Ilagala F
Kassim Juma CHBC Ilagala M
Amini Kisiki CHBC Ilagala M
Mangapi Ramadhani CHBC Ilagala F
Abrazah S Mpolwe Forest Monitor Ilagala M
Tano H Msekenyi Forest Monitor Ilagala M
Saidi A Mwanangan VINA Ilagala M
Jeremia John Kanyovu Cooperative Dry Mill Manager Kalinzi M
Feurick Ndatinse Village government Hamlet Chairperson Kalinzi M
Obedi Sclebwa Village government Hamlet Chairperson Kalinzi M
Magdalena Leonard
Kagege
Village government VEO Kalinzi F
Eliakimu Rulasabuye Village government Village Chairperson Kalinzi M
Sotelly M Tunde Village government Ward officer Kalinzi M
Saida VINA member Kalinzi F
Kristina Bukuru VLUM VLUM member Kalinzi F
Mstafa L Mpalazo VLUM VLUM member Kalinzi M
Enock Kikwembe VLUM VLUM chairperson Kalinzi M
Dorisi Nkoko VLUM VLUM member Kalinzi F
Simema Musa CBD Kalinzi F
Ambroz R Minja Ecotourism chairperson Kalinzi M
Tobias Juma Forest Monitor Kalinzi M
Tije MoshiRajabu Mpalazo Forest Monitor Kalinzi M
Clement Kaje Village representative Kalinzi M
Agatha Mathew Village representative Kalinzi F
Hawa J Mwayeye Village representative Kalinzi F
Moshi Natije Village representative Kalinzi F
Venelanda Nkoko Village representative Kalinzi F
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 75
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Aneth Robison Village representative Kalinzi F
Akwilina M Rusimbi Village representative Kalinzi F
Paul Samwel Village representative Kalinzi M
Kamlime Juma SACCOS Village representative, SACCOS
Accountant
Kasuku F
Abdoh Mwima Village government VEO Kasuku M
Ahmadi Ally Village government Village Chairperson Kasuku M
Abdallah Village representative Kasuku M
Junanne Kitero Village representative Kasuku M
Mtindo Village representative Kasuku M
Juma Mussa Village representative Kasuku M
A. Mussa Village representative Kasuku M
Hussein Mussa Village representative Kasuku M
Jummanne Kassim
Kagese
Village representative Kasuku M
Saidi Village representative Kasuku M
SACCOS member Katambike F
SACCOS member Katambike F
SACCOS member Katambike F
SACCOS member Katambike M
Tatu Hassan VICOBA member Katambike F
Ramadhani Mussa VICOBA member Katambike M
VICOBA member Katambike F
Pili Ibrahim VICOBA Chairperson Katambike F
Moshi Juma VICOBA Secretary Katambike M
Mfaume T. Lusambi Village government Village Chairperson Katambike M
Paschal Michael Village government Village representative Katambike M
Mfaume Thobias Village government Village representative Katambike M
Filbert John Village government,
VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
Hamlet chairperson Katambike M
Anna Blazio VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike F
Theophil S. Kahensa VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike M
Mary Laurent VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike F
Saidi Malando Mboja VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike M
Mkoma Mbulule VLUM, and member Katambike M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 76
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Beekeepers group
Mvulla B.J VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike M
Majuma Rashid VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike F
Tatu Nissolo VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
member Katambike F
Reststus Maruba VLUM, and
Beekeepers group
WEO Ugalla Katambike M
Joselin Kryazuri WEO Katambike F
Norbet J. Mbamba Forest Monitor Katambike M
Pelusi Ezekia Village representative Kazuramimba M
Shani Y. Katwikula Village representative Kazuramimba F
Pascal Luhehe Village representative Kazuramimba M
Rehema Mohamedi Village representative Kazuramimba F
Mwamini N. Mussa Village representative Kazuramimba F
Moshi Muzanye Village representative Kazuramimba M
Edward Japheti Village representative (FE
stove)
Kazuramimba M
Andason N.Mkungu Village representative (FE
stove)
Kazuramimba M
Rehema Nyamwesa Environment
Committee
Accounting clerk Kazuramimba F
Alfredi Kahisha Lutasha Environment
Committee
Environmental Officer Kazuramimba M
Chausiku Salumu Environment
Committee
Environmental officer Kazuramimba F
Jackson A. Bihaga Environment
Committee
Environmental officer
(chairperson)
Kazuramimba M
Godfrey Gervas Environment
Committee
Environmental officer
(secretary)
Kazuramimba M
Amisa Mrsiho Environment
Committee
Village representative Kazuramimba F
Sofia Manga JUMNTANGO Village representative Kazuramimba F
Esteria Y. Ruzuya JUMNTANGO Village representative Kazuramimba F
Juma Binige Saidi JUMNTANGO Village representative Kazuramimba M
Yahaya Seheye JUMNTANGO Village representative Kazuramimba M
Nakan S. Kutentya Roots and Shoots Teacher (Supervisor, Roots and
Shoots)
Kazuramimba M
Adam N. Mtungwa Village government VEO Kazuramimba M
Adam Nassibu Village government VEO Kazuramimba M
Pharesi J. Biyaga Village government Village Chairperson Kazuramimba M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 77
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Hussein Musa Kasala Village government Chairperson Kigalye M
Hamdi Sugwejo Village government VEO Kigalye M
Yahaya Kasembe Forest Monitor Kirando M
Juma S Kasenya Forest Monitor Kirando M
Dominic E Rubigo Nulamu Kirando M
Hamissi R Mussa Specialist Kirando M
Yusuph M Hussein Village representative Kirando M
Ramadhani J Mnugwa Village representative Kirando M
Didas Leonincy Yaha Village representative Kirando F
Masongo H Masongo Village government Hamlet chairperson Kirando M
Bahati A Chenga Village government VEO Kirando M
Sudi Omar Abdalah Village government Village Chairperson Kirando M
Pilly Chuma VLUM VLUM member Kirando F
Kisubi Hassani VLUM VLUM member Kirando F
Yahaya Kashimba VLUM VLUM member Kirando M
Mariam Mwali VLUM VLUM member Kirando F
George G Smith VLUM VLUM member Kirando M
Baruti Yakubu VLUM VLUM member Kirando M
Bahati Mwakapeje JUMATU A Assistant secretary Majalila F
Abdallah Kakoso JUMATU A Chairperson Majalila M
Kagolo Kanyovu Cooperative member Matyazo M
Swalehe Saidi Makoko Environment
Committee
Environmental Officer Mwamgongo M
Salum Abu Juma Environment
Committee
Environmental officer
(chairperson)
Mwamgongo M
Azama Haruna SACCOS Village representative
(SACCOS member )
Mwamgongo F
Sefu Issa SACCOS Village representative
(SACCOS member )
Mwamgongo M
Juwailia Juma SACCOS Village representative
(SACCOS member )
Mwamgongo F
Ismail Juma SACCOS Village representative
(SACCOS member )
Mwamgongo M
Hemedi R.Misozi SACCOS Village representative
(SACCOS member )
Mwamgongo M
Hussein Omari Village government VEO Mwamgongo M
Juma Shabani Migombo Village government Village Chairperson Mwamgongo M
Mwanaisha Hamisi Village government Village representative Mwamgongo F
Msafiri Ismail Village government Village representative Mwamgongo M
Pili Issa Nyota Village government Village representative Mwamgongo F
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 78
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Jumanne Seif Driver Uvinza M
Saidi Beekeepers group member Uvinza M
Maximilian Beekeepers group member Uvinza M
Mohamed Beekeepers group member Uvinza M
Nical Mategea Beekeepers group Group Chairperson Vikonge M
Faustina Mussa Beekeepers group member Vikonge F
Ismail Mgonde Beekeepers group Secretary Vikonge M
Monica Edward Kasia JUMATU A Assistant chairperson Vikonge F
George Mathias Kalikiti JUMATU A Secretary Vikonge M
Galusi Lusale JUMATU B Chairperson, Village Planning
and Finance committee
Vikonge M
Paul Kidiga Village government Vikonge M
Christopher V. Mayenon Village government VEO Vikonge M
Ramadhani Ally Village government Village representative Vikonge M
Thomas Busika Village government Village representative Vikonge M
Abel Kivuta Village government Village representative Vikonge M
Japhet Msakwa Mahuba Village government Village representative Vikonge M
Joseph Petter Shambire Village government Village representative Vikonge M
Amina Hassan Tumakata Zashe F
Petro Masolwa The Nature
Conservancy
Tuungane Project Manager Kigoma M
Magnus Mosha Frankfurt Zoological
Society
Tuungane Project Kigoma M
Alex Piel Ugalla Primate
Project
Co-director Ugalla M
Yassin Mkwizu Norwegian Embassy Programme Officer,
Environment, NR, & CC
Dar es Salaam M
Gilbert Kajuna USAID Dar es Salaam M
Robert Layng USAID Dar es Salaam M
Mary Hobbs USAID Director, Office of EG Dar es Salaam F
David Hess USAID Program Office consultant Dar es Salaam M
Angela Mwaikambo USAID Program Office M&E Specialist Dar es Salaam F
Robert Beadle USAID Program Office--Project
Development Officer
Dar es Salaam M
Abbas Nsanzugwanko USAID Project Management Specialist
(M&E) for Education
Dar es Salaam M
Gabriel Batulaine USAID Senior Environmental
Management Specialist
Dar es Salaam M
Mikala Lauridsen USAID Senior Technical Advisor, NRM Dar es Salaam F
Abubakari Mutoka Women's Promotion Program Manager Kigoma M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 79
Name Organization Position Village Gender
Balibanga Center
Elisa Vandervort Grounds for Health USA F
Lynne Gaffikin EARTH, Inc. President Woodside F
Alyson G. Hyman IPAS Senior Advisor, Community
Access
USA F
Yared Fubusa GESOSO Executive Director Kigoma M
Jonathon Aldous Hilltop Hotel Kigoma M
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 80
2. DOCUMENT LIST
2.a. Project Studies and Reports
Development Impact (2014), Social Economic Study of Communities Living within the Gombe
Masito Ugalla Ecosystem, March 2014
FORCONSULT (2011), Final Evaluation Report on the Landscape Scale Community Centered
Ecosystem Conservation in Western Tanzania, Kigoma District, First Draft, January 2010,
Morogoro, Tanzania.
GMU Program Team (2013), Landscape Scale Community Centered Conservation in Western
Tanzania GMU Program Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), the Jane Goodall Institute, Fourth
Revision: August, 2013
Gray, Elizabeth (2011), Climate Change Impacts to Key Ecosystems and People’s Livelihoods in the
Gombe-Masito-Ugalla and the Greater Mahale Project Area, The Nature Conservancy, 24 March
2011
Green Tanzania Environmental Consultants Ltd (2011), Socio-Economic Study of Communities
Living in the Corridor Area of Gombe Masito Ugalla Ecosystem: Final Report, May 2011.
Lyaruu, H.V.M. (2010), Assessment of Drivers of Deforestation in the Gombe Masito Ugalla
Landscape, November 2010
Masolwa, Petro, Charles Oluchina and Lucy Magembe (2013), Landscape-Scale Community- Centered Ecosystem Conservation in Western Tanzania: End–of-Program Peer Review (Audit)
Report, December 11 -12, 2013, Kigoma, Tanzania, The Nature Conservancy – Africa Program.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2014), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, January–March, 2014, the Jane Goodall Institute, April 30, 2014.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2014), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, October – December, 2013, the Jane Goodall Institute, January
31, 2014.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2013), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, July – September 2013, the Jane Goodall Institute, October 31,
2013.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2013), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, January–March, 2013, the Jane Goodall Institute, April 30, 2013.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2013), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, October – December, 2012, the Jane Goodall Institute, January
31, 2013.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2012), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, July – September 2012, the Jane Goodall Institute, October 31,
2012.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 81
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2012), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, April– June, 2012, the Jane Goodall Institute, July 31, 2012.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2012), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, January–March, 2012, the Jane Goodall Institute, April 30, 2012.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2012), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, October – December, 2011, the Jane Goodall Institute, January
31, 2012.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2011), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, July – September 2011, the Jane Goodall Institute, October 31,
2011.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2011), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, April– June, 2011, the Jane Goodall Institute, July 29, 2011.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2011), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, January– March, 2011, the Jane Goodall Institute, April 30,
2011.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2011), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, October – December, 2010, the Jane Goodall Institute, January
31, 2011.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2010), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, July – September 2010, the Jane Goodall Institute, no date.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2010), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, April– June, 2010, the Jane Goodall Institute, no date.
Mtiti, Emmanuel (2010), Quarterly Report: Landscape Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation in Western Tanzania, January– March, 2010, the Jane Goodall Institute, April 30,
2010.
Palangyo, Nyinisaeli K. (2007), Socio- economic survey of the communities living within the
Greater Gombe Ecosystem Program area, October, 2007.
Piel, Alex, Fiona Stewart, and Naomi Cohen (2014), Monitoring the Masito-Ugalla Ecosystem: 2014
Chimpanzee Survey
Piel, Alex and F.S. Stewart (2014), Census and Conservation Status of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
schweinfurthii) across the Greater Mahale Ecosystem, 2011-2012. Unpublished Report. Ugalla Primate
Project
The Jane Goodall Institute (2012), Landscape Scale Community Centered Conservation in Western
Tanzania Annual Workplan FY 2013, compiled November 2012
The Jane Goodall Institute (2009), Landscape-Scale Community-Centered Ecosystem Conservation
in Western Tanzania: Technical Application Program Description, July 17, 2009.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 82
The Jane Goodall Institute (no date), Landscape Scale Community Centered Conservation in
Western Tanzania Annual Workplan 2012
The Jane Goodall Institute (no date), Landscape Scale Community Centered Conservation in
Western Tanzania Annual Workplan FY 2011
2.b. Project Training Materials
Kukuza Utawala Bora Na Uwajibikaji [for the SACCOS]
Mafunzo Ya Kilimo Cha Kahawa [training in Kalinzi in 2011]
Huduma Za Wagonjwa Nyumbani (Huwanyu)
Mafunzo Ya Kamati Za Mazingira Za Vijiji (March 2009)
Roots and Shoots brochure
Claugh, Laura and Kavita Rai (2012), Review of Household Clean Energy Technology for Lighting,
Charging, and Cooking in East Africa—Kenya and Tanzania: Toolkit for Implementing Household
Energy Projects in Conservation Areas, GVEP International, September 2012.
Pasiansi Wildlife Training Institute (PWTI), Curriculum for Basic Technician Certificate In Wildlife
Management
VINA Trainer’s Guide for Environmental Conservation
2.c. Village Land Use Plans
United Republic of Tanzania (2009), Land Use Plan for the Village of Ilagala, enabled by the
Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (2009), Land Use Plan for the Village of Kazuramimba, enabled by the
Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (2009), Land Use Plan for the Village of Kirando, enabled by the
Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Mwamgongo, enabled by
the Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Bubango
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Kalinzi, enabled by the
Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Kasuku, enabled by the
Kigoma District Council
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of KatambikeUnited Republic
of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Kigalye, enabled by the Kigoma District
Council
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 83
United Republic of Tanzania (no date), Land Use Plan for the Village of Vikonge, enabled by the
Mpanda District Council
2.d. Background and Supporting Documents
Alcorn, Janis, Bob Winterbottom, et al. (2002), Assessment of CBNRM Best Practices in Tanzania:
Final Report, International Resources Group and partners, under the Environmental Policy and
Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract, October 2002.
Anderies J.M., Janssen M.A., Ostrom, Elinor (2003), Design Principles for Robustness of
Institutions in Social-Ecological Systems.
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1777/Ostrom,Elinor.pdf?sequence=1
Byers, Bruce (2012), Tanzania Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment, U.S. Forest
Service, Office of International Programs, November 2012. Hahn, Beth (2013), Assessment of Conservation- Based Livelihoods in Tanzania, U.S. Forest
Service, Office of International Programs, August 2013.
International Resources Group, Ltd (2000), Community Based Conservation Experience in
Tanzania: An Assessment of Lessons Learned, August 2000.
Margoluis, R., C. Stem, V. Swaminathan, M. Brown, A. Johnson, G. Placci, N. Salafsky, and I.
Tilders(2013), Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation.
Ecology and Society 18(3): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05610-180322
Ostrom, Elinor (2007), A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 39, 15181–15187, September 25, 2007
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Philemon, Beatrice (2014), “Farmers in Kigoma Region secure crop markets in Burundi”, The
Guardian, Thursday, August 28, 2014: Business and Foreign, p.1.
Tetra Tech ARD and Maliasili Initiatives (2013), Tanzania Wildlife Management Areas (WMA)
Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report, July 15, 2013. U.S. Agency for International Development (2013), Discussion Note: Complexity-Aware
Monitoring, Version 2.0, Monitoring & Evaluation Series, December 2013
U.S. Agency for International Development (2011), USAID Evaluation Policy. Evaluation Learning
from Experience. Washington, DC: USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development (1996), Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips.
Using Direct Observation Techniques. Washington, DC: USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development (1996), Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips.
Conducting Key Informant Interviews. Washington, DC: USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development (1996), Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips.
Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Washington, DC: USAID
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 84
U.S. Agency for International Development (2010), Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Tips.
Constructing an Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development (no date), Tanzania—Property Rights and Resource
Governance Profile, Washington, DC: USAID
United Republic of Tanzania (2010), National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II
(NSGRP II), July 2010
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and DANIDA (1999), Project Document: Sustainable and Integrated
Management of the Malagarasi-Muyovozi Ramsar Site, Environment, Peace and Stability Facility:
Environmental Support Programme, Tanzania, Ref. No. 104. Tanzania.1.Mika.1.e, November 1999
United Republic of Tanzania (1998), National Bee Keeping Policy, March 1998
United Republic of Tanzania (1998), National Forest Policy, March 1998
United Republic of Tanzania (2010), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania Forest
Service Strategic Plan July 2010 – June 2013
United Republic Of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania Forestry
Services (Community Based Forest Management Guidelines for the Establishment of Village Land
Forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves)
Guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning (Draft)
United Republic of Tanzania (2004), The Environmental Management Act, 2004
United Republic of Tanzania (2002), Forest Act, 2002
United Republic of Tanzania (1999), Village Land Act, 1999
United Republic of Tanzania (1982), The Local Government (District Authorities) Act, 1982
Walsh, Martin (1996), Socio-Economic Studies in Tanzania for the Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity
Project: A Practical Assessment and Draft Workplan, Dar es Salaam, August 1996.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 85
3. HOUSEHOLD MINI-SURVEY
The mini-survey questionnaire was designed to explore ways in which village men and women had
been involved or benefitted from the project. Based on the field test in Chankele, where none of the
randomly selected test households visited responded that they had been involved in project
activities, the evaluation team determined to limit interviews to households identified by village
government leaders as having participated in and/or benefited directly from the project. This
method limited the number of households that were readily accessible. Not counting, the team
carried out interviews in four of the remaining 11 villages visited—Katambike, Vikonge,
Mwamgongo, Kazuramimba—and from households in the villages of Mkongoro, which neighbors
Chankele, and Kasisi, which neighbors Katambike. A total of 25 households were interviewed.
Chart 1: Question #1 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 86
Chart 2: Question #3 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 3: Question #5 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 87
Chart 4: Question #8 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 5: Question #9 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 88
Chart 6: Question #12 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 7: Question #13 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 89
Chart 8: Question #14 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 9: Question #22 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 90
Chart 10: Question #25 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 11: Question #26 on the Household Mini-Survey
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 91
Chart 12: Question #27 on the Household Mini-Survey
Chart 13: Question #28 on the Household Mini-Survey
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the GMU Project 92
4. LIST OF TRAINING SESSIONS CONDUCTED
List of Training Sessions Conducted by the Program (2010 – 2014)70
Nr Title Partici- pants
Trainees Where When Who Topic covered/Remarks
1 Special course in
wildlife management
25 FM Mwanza Q2 2010 Pasiansi Wildlife Training
Institute
Three-month formal training
in wildlife management and
community conservation
2 Improved bee
keeping
145 Bee keepers Kigoma Q2 2010 District beekeeping officer
3 Roots and Shoots’
club leadership
118 Club leaders Bitale Q4 2010 Jgi R&s coordinator Guide available
4 Patron / Matron ng
R&S clubs
135 R&S matron and
patron teachers
Uvinza Q4 2010 Program staff, Ministry of
education staff
Guide available
5 Land use planning
training
76 VLUM teams,
VEO, Village
Chairperson
Respective villages Q4 2010 District LUP Team National LUP guide
6 Agroforestry and soil
erosion control
practices
46 Extension officers Kigoma JGI office Q4 2010 JGI staff Training Manual available
7 Community based
forest management
training
192 Village leaders
and VLUM team
Kigoma district Q4 2010 JGI staff and Prof Luoga Protocol guide available
8 Introduction to land
and forestry policy
99 CBO
representatives
Kigoma JGI office Q4 2010 Kigoma District staff and
JGI staff
Land and forestry policy
available
9 Sustainable forest
management
37 CBO leaders Kigoma office Q4 2010 Kigoma District staff and
JGI staff
10 Micro finance
institution
management
240 SACCOS
members
Mwamgongo, Ilagala,
Kaseke,
Q4 2010 Kigoma district cooperative
officer and JGI staff
National cooperative
guidelines
11 Construction of Fuel 107 Local community VINA and selected Q4 2012 JGI staff Guide for construction of
70Source: Jane Goodall Institute
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 93
Nr Title Partici- pants
Trainees Where When Who Topic covered/Remarks
Efficient stoves community members Rocket stove (practical
training)
12 Fire wise 250 Students Mkigo, Nyarubanda,
Kalinzi, Chankele,
Bubango,
Mgaraganza,
Mkongoro
Q3 2012 JGI program staff
13 Ecotourism training 60 Village based tour
guides
Kalinzi and
Mwamgingo
Q3 2012 Acacia Collage of tourism
management
Report available
14 Bylaws and
guidelines on wildfire
management
498 VLUM teams and
village council
members
Mkigo, Nyarubanda,
Kalinzi, Chankele,
Bubango,
Mgaraganza,
Mkongoro, Kagunga,
Zashe, kiziba,
Mwamgongo,
Mtanga, Kigalye,
Mtanga, Kalalangabo
Q3 2012 JGI staff and Zonal Forestry
Publicity Unit, Kigoma office
15 Forest management
planning
124 VLUM Simbo Kasuku and
Kaseke
Q3 2012 Kigoma District LUP team
16 Principles of
Agroforestry
20 District Extension
16officers
Mpanda Q3 2012 JGI forester and Mpanda
Forest officer
Training manual available
17 Post harvest
management of
coffee
15 District Extension
officers
Kalinzi Q2 2012 District Agric Officer
18 Land use Planning 114 VLUM teams Sigunga Q2 2012 District LUPT
19 CBFM concepts
training
139 VLUM teams Katambike,
Mnyamasi, Kasisi
Q2 2012 District NRM office
20 Entrepreneurship
skills
34 SACCOS
members
Majalila Q2 2012 District Cooperative officer National cooperative policy
21 Good forest and
cooperative
governance
60 CBO
representative
Kigoma JGI office Q1 2012 Development Impact Report available
22 Land Use planning 37 VLUM
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 94
Nr Title Partici- pants
Trainees Where When Who Topic covered/Remarks
23 ANDROID phone use
in data collection
35 Forest Monitors Kigoma JGI office Q1 2012 JGI technical staff(GIS, CB,
IT, LUP, FO)
24 Good Governance
and Public
expenditure tracking
System
272 Coffee primary
societies,
beekeeping
groups, SACCOS
leaders and
village leaders
Kigoma JGI office Q1 2012 Development Impact Report available
25 Principles of
cooperation
370 SACCOS
members
Kidahwe, Kandaga,
Matyazo, Uvinza
Q4 2011 Kigoma District Cooperative
Officer
National cooperative policy
26 Village
Environmental
conservation
59 Primary school
teachers
27 Improved bee
keeping
80 Beekeepers Majalila Q3 2011 Mpanda Beekeeping Officer
28 CBFM 72 VLUM team Q 3 2011
29 Health home based
care providing
46 Community
volunteers
Mpanda Q3 2011 Regional HBC coordinator National guidelines for HBC
30 HIV mainstreaming 18 KIVIDEA team
leaders
Kigoma JGI office Q3 2011 JGI staff
31 Coffee post harvest
processing
15 TOT Kalinzi Q4 2011 Kigoma District Agric officer
32
33
Agroforestry and tree
species
79 Agriculture
Extension officers
Kiziba, Mwamgongo,
Mkongoro, Kalinzi
and Kalenge
Q4 2011 Program officer
34 Wildlife management
course at PASIANSI
16 Forest Monitors Pasiansi Mwanza Q4 2011 PWMC
35 HIV life skills 1850 R&S club
members
47 R&S clubs in
schools
Q3 2011 KIVIDEA
36 CHBCP 125 Home based care
service providers
Kihinga FDC Q3 2011 AIDS star one
37 Fire fighting
techniques
239 Fire crews in 14
villages
Mkigo, Nyarubanda,
Kalinzi, Chankele,
Bubango,
Q2 2011 District staff and Program
staff
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 95
Nr Title Partici- pants
Trainees Where When Who Topic covered/Remarks
Mgaraganza,
Kagongo,
Kalalangabo,
Kagunga, Zashe,
Kiziba, Mwamgongo,
Mtanga, Kigalye,
38 Climate change
Clinic
21 Districts, JGI and
FZS staff
JGI office Q2 2011 TNC USA Review of local climate
change impacts
39 Improved bee
keeping
145 Local beekeepers Malagarasi, Chakulu,
Uvinza, Mwamila,
Kazuramimba,
Kalenge
Q2 2011 District Beekeeping officer
40 Introduction to land
and forestry policy
76 CBO
representatives
TUMAKATA villages Q2 2011 District staff
41 Sustainable forest
management
36 CBO leaders JGI office Q2 2011 Prof Lyoga from SUA
42 Refresher training on
entrepreneurship
240 SACCOS
members
Kalinzi, Mwamgongo,
Kagunga, Bitale
Q2 2011 District cooperative office
and JGI staff
43 Life skills training 1750 R&S members Q2 2011 Kividea Curriculum available
44 Good governance
training
72 Councilors from
all districts
Kigoma JGI office
and Mpanda District
offices
Q2 2011 Development Impact Training schedule available
45 Teachers training 40 Patron/Matron
Teachers
Q3 2013
46 Fire Management
651
Village Fire Crews Mkigo, Nyarubanda,
Kalinzi, Mkongoro,
Chankele, Bubango,
Mgaraganza,
Kagongo,
Kalalangabo,
Kagunga, Zashe,
Kiziba, Mwamgongo,
Mtanga, Kigalye,
Bitale
Q3 2013 JGI staff and Forest
publicity department
47 PLUM training 26 VLUM team and Q3 2013 District Land Use Planning
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 96
Nr Title Partici- pants
Trainees Where When Who Topic covered/Remarks
village council team
48 SACCOS
accountants training 18 Teachers Kihinga FDC Q4 2013 District Cooperative officers
49
Life skills 1,944 Students Village Primary
schools
Q4 2013 KIVIDEA
50 Participatory Forest
Management 447 VLUM and village
council members
Q4 2013
51 Agroforestry and tree
nursery techniques 62 Farmers Mwakizega and
Mkongoro
Q4 2013 District Agriculture Officer
and JGI staff
Manual available
52 Post planting coffee
husbandry
40 Agriculture
extension officers,
HIV/AIDS affected
clients and
Kanyovu Board
members
Kanyovu Cooperative
leaders
Q4 2013 District Agriculture Officer Impacts of improved practices
on coffee quality
The economic and ecological
importance of integration on
coffee farms
Coffee quality assurance at
Coffee Processing Units
(CPU)
Mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS
activities for coffee farmers
Establishing a monitoring
system – data collection and
reporting
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project in Western
Tanzania 97
ANNEX G: PROJECT PICTURES
Credits: Photos and graphics were provided by the Jane Goodall Institute unless otherwise noted.
One of the most visible achievements of the Gombe-Masito-Ugalla (GMU) Program is the
regeneration of degraded forest areas already evident in a forest corridor around Gombe National
Park. The forest area in the GMU has been continuously monitored and mapped by 30-meter
resolution Landsat satellite imagery from 1972, 1997, 2001, 2007, & 2013. For Greater Gombe,
DigitalGlobe has acquired imagery each 1-3 years since 2005 to help JGI map reforestation, and land
cover/ land use change and threats.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 98
The regenerating forest
area greatly extends the
Park’s much smaller area
of high-biodiversity habitat
rich in food sources for
chimpanzees. It is the result of a decade￾long effort to protect a
connected corridor of
forest cover through the
protection of many
individual forest reserves
set aside by communities
near the Park.
While some community
members appreciate the
protection of habitat for
chimpanzees in itself, the
benefit the evaluation team
heard community
members mention most
often was the return of
mushrooms to the forest
floor. Before villages
agreed to protect the forest
areas, fires each year had
greatly reduced mushroom
blooms.
Land use planning for the
forested corridor was
shaped very effectively by
the Conservation Action
Plan (CAP)’s clear focus
on conserving chimpanzee
habitat. The conservation
area was designed to
maximize chimpanzee and
watersheds objectives,
while minimizing the
opportunity cost by taking
into account the
distribution of all of the
houses in the region.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 99
The planning process reached out to village people, e.g., Village Forest Reserves vary by size village
by village depending on villagers’ decisions as part of the VLUP process. However, the CAP’s
narrow focus may have undercut community “ownership” of the planning process and the resulting
Village Land Use Plans (VLUPs).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 100
Photo Credit: Christopher William Second Photo Credit: Allen Turner
Nonetheless, the VLUPs have established village boundaries and land use zones. Land use
signboards communicate zones to community members and support voluntary compliance. By-laws
governing land use are proving effective in limiting conversion and unsustainable use of forest
resources.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 101
Above Photo Credit: Edward Kizenga
Below Photo Credit: Christopher William
Private nurseries have been successful in propagating seedlings for woodlots, which are now
beginning to yield fuel, thus reducing pressure to gather fuel wood from the natural forest. Fuel- efficient stoves have been adopted in fuel-wood-scarce areas. Some households aren’t satisfied with
the new stove’s design. In this case, the owner needed to build two stoves, to accommodate pots of
different sizes
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 102
Photo credit: Edward Kigenza
The GMU Program complemented land-use planning with livelihood interventions. Coffee has
been its most successful value chain effort, which has built well on the strengths of private sector
collaboration. The Kanyovu Cooperative produces 8,300 tons of dried beans annually for sale to
roasters, enough to fill more than 400 shipping containers. The Coop’s 7,000 farmer members
demonstrate a remarkable and important change in attitude—a shared appreciation of the value of
quality in market relationships. The Coop has three times won first place for quality among all of
Tanzania’s coffees, most recently last year (2013). Income from coffee has increased significantly
through support for improved quality and marketing, including direct, hands-on learning of quality
control by individual farmers through organized groups, and field visits to successful coffee
marketing areas. Coffee appears to have additional untapped potential for conservation-oriented
productivity, including biodiversity-friendly shade-grown coffee and environmental and social
certification.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 103
Income-generating
opportunities in
lakeside villages are
completely
different than in
higher hill villages
where coffee can
be grown.
Nonetheless, the
same principles
apply. One of the
GMU’s sister
projects has
supported fish- drying racks to
helped fishers
control quality
effectively to
satisfy buyers’
criteria. These
racks are in
Kigalye, the same
village whose
forest regeneration
is shown in the
first photos.
Photo Credits: Allen
Turner
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 104
One of the objectives of the GMU Program was to expand the participatory VLUP approach from
the forests of Gombe to the miombo woodlands of the Masito-Ugalla. Here, villages face a
different set of challenges. The most significant trend is the increasing in-migration of agro- pastoralists, which is a problem, too, at the national level. Without land use plans, there is no law
that can be used to govern agro-pastoralists settling in the villages.
On the road to Bugwe, one of
three villages that have not
completed land use plans, the
evaluation team saw extensive
areas that had been recently
felled. The newly deforested
areas are planted in maize and
then used for grazing.
Photo credits: Allen Turner
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 105
These sacks of maize bring far less money per sack into the pockets of producers than does coffee.
Nonetheless, a large area of cleared forest can produce more sacks—at least the first year.
Photo Credits: Allen Turner
The logs, too, bring a little profit, but little wood is processed into value-added products locally.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 106
Photo Credits: Allen Turner
This man told the evaluation team that
he had no permit to cut this log but, he
said, “I have to live.”
A more common product from the
miombo woodlands is charcoal.
Communities understand well the value
of their natural resources. These youth
in Bugwe are helping to build a
schoolhouse of bricks made of local clay
and fired with local fuel wood from the
natural woodlands.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 107
The implementation of
land use plans depends
on enforcement of
their by-laws.
Beginning with
research-focused
efforts funded by
various donors (see
map to left), JGI has
provide training and
related support to
extend the use of the
same geospatial tools
and skills a cadre of
village-based Forest
Monitors (FMs) who
patrol regularly to
identify specific threats
(red dots on the below
image).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 108
Android smartphones or tablets and
Open Data Kit (ODK) enable FMs to
report geo-referenced data and
pictures on illegal activities and
wildlife. JGI is also working to
improve local decision makers’ access
and use of FM's data through live,
dynamic and easy to use dashboards
that will provide real-time access in
low-bandwidth environments. JGI
challenge now is to improve local
decision makers’ access and use of
FM's data through easy to use
dashboards that provide real-time
access in low-bandwidth
environments.
The above picture of a trap designed to trap live baboons and chimps is the first time such a trap
was reported in the region. The FM from Songambele reported it to his government and they
destroyed it.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 109
Other threats recorded by patrols include illegal logging. Organized exploitation such as this is
sometimes carried out in collusion with village leaders and presents a greater risk than that by poor
individuals such as the man on the bicycle shown earlier.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 110
The GMU program tested different mobile devices and forms to collect data and encountered and
resolved many technical problems. The challenge now is to engage local decision-makers in helping
define data of interest and use to them in managing their land, water, and other natural resources, in
addition to the strictly conservation-related data. To improve the effectiveness of patrols and to
make data comparable between time intervals or villages (as well as scientifically useful), JGI is
beginning to calculate encounter rates dividing observations (e.g. threats) by patrol effort (e.g. km
patrolled).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 111
A young chimpanzee enjoys the benefits of a protected forest.
Photo credits: Allen Turner
Evaluation Specialist Peter Riwa engages the new generation in Kigalye.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 112
ANNEX H: DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS
1. BALANCE CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD/DRIVERS
The evaluation team feels that balancing conservation and livelihood will require a change of
mindset within JGI’s technical team. This is unlikely to be achieved through partnering with other
organizations alone; it will require integrating value chain expertise and perspective in the day-to-day
work of the team on an on-going basis, and especially at the levels of specific communities and
specific value-chain stakeholders, where the symbiotic relationship between nature and livelihood is,
in the words of one of the team’s members, “appreciated and celebrated.”
JGI should integrate conservation, livelihoods, and natural resource governance at the level of each
village. As described under the Dual Approach and Stakeholder Ownership sections below, JGI
should select a small number of villages and develop targets that are based on village-specific
participatory assessments of resources, assets, needs, and opportunities.
JGI should work with village leaders, community members, and district staff to agree on specific and
explicit criteria for continuing and selecting productivity and livelihood interventions. These should
include:  Likelihood of post-project sustainability, measured by the willingness of community members
to engage and invest without subsidies;  Depth of markets;  Existing knowledge and skills; and
 Potential scale of socio-economic impact.
Criteria for biodiversity conservation should be a means of screening options that have been
identified rather than a starting point for identifying options.
JGI should develop a livelihood strategy and action plan that ensures that project livelihood
interventions are:  Based on an appreciation of and insight into specific value chains, with
 Operational strategies for developing the needed relationships (vertical and horizontal) and
technical and market capacities.
In building on the GMU’s base of existing experience, JGI should explore how to apply lessons
learned and best practices to other opportunities for both livelihoods and revenues, by helping
producers and community leaders:  Develop knowledge, skills, and relationships for improving productivity, adding value through
processing and/or quality control, and marketing  Understand and collaborate in response to market opportunities and helping them develop
market relationships  Review each introduced technology against user criteria and reflecting local conditions. For
example, review the FES introductions, adaptation, and adoption based on user feedback and
fuel wood availability in each locale.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 113
 Scale up nurseries and woodlots through private operators responding to local demand.  Explore community-based technology introduction for beekeeping, productivity
enhancement.
JGI should draw on curricula for value chain development, social change, and discovery learning—
adapting these as needed to fit local conditions and incorporating conservation principles as
appropriate.
2. DUAL APPROACH
JGI should work with the district authorities to develop VLUPs in the remaining villages using a low
cost model. This should begin with reviewing and consolidating the model in a limited number of
selected villages.
Building on past PRAs, JGI should help village leaders prepare a village profile that enables villagers
to explore livelihood, conservation, and (natural resource) governance dimensions of their village.
JGI should work with district staff to help each selected village develop a participatory profile that
reflects shared understanding among the village’s members and significant stakeholders active in the
village. The profile should explore three basic kinds of issues at each site—with respect to Nature,
Wealth, and Power (NWP):  The resource system (Nature), including the forests, water, biodiversity, and other ecosystem
service “values” upon which villagers depend
 The drivers and livelihood pressures (Wealth), including market, investment, subsistence, and
other use or “exploitation” activities that draw on and impact the resource systems  The governance arrangements (Power) for making decisions affecting the village and its
members and their well-being.
In supporting the “profiles,” JGI should help stakeholders explore causes, implications and
interrelationships. In effect, JGI needs to “downscale” the underlying analysis of the CAPs while
broadening it to ensure that Wealth and Power dimensions are fully explored by village stakeholders.
Gender should also be factored in effectively with such a framework.
As the model is under development, JGI should initiate discussions with government officials on
how this process can potentially be streamlined and made more cost effective, to support rollout in
new communities and to contribute to replication throughout the country. In this regard, JGI
should identify areas where the law may be improved, e.g., in the prescription of members of the
VLUP process, in task shifting as a cost cutting option or in otherwise streamlining support for
VLUP teams to carry out the process. The process should build on traditional and emerging new
structures to strengthen the development of a “culture” of rules and agreements, beginning with the
“analytic” and “planning” steps of project (CAP and Driver)- and village (PRA and VLUP)-level
activities.  The rules-and-agreements capacities transfer both to enforcing by-laws with respect to
resource extraction and to meeting standards and honoring contracts with respect to the
market place.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 114
 Elinor Ostrom’s organizational governance models can enrich this—e.g., her three-levels-of- rules concept: (a) who’s in (and who’s out), (b) decision-making rules (the framework for
inclusion, transparency, accountability), and (c) operational rules (the actual by-laws).
3. STAKEHOLDER OWNERSHIP
To ensure that the profiles are owned by the communities, JGI should develop a clear and explicit
methodology to build ownership in to each (every single) community. This methodology should
include criteria for selection of activities and define indicators and monitoring mechanisms that
measure real capacity to perform specific kinds of activities or functions related to each community’s
vision for its relationship with the natural resources on which it relies.
The community-made and community-owned profile should then serve as an equal guideline to the
national guidelines in informing the VLUP. The main issue is not the plan itself, but the perception
that the plan is not theirs. The profile process, building on past and new PRAs as appropriate will
also provide venues for informal discussions of the VLUP before formal meetings. Clear criteria and
an improved process for community-wide selection of VLUM members are also important.
For each village that meets minimal criteria for ownership and good leadership (as a proxy for
political will), JGI should support the Village Governments and the VLUMs in reviewing their
VLUP by-laws. This process should assess the degree to which by-laws meet proven design
principles for governing uses of natural resources by multiple stakeholders. In addition to clearly
defined boundaries, this requires ensuring that:  By-laws that specify amount of resource products that a user is allocated are fair, transparent,
sustainable, and related to local conditions and to rules requiring labor, materials, and/or
fees to ensure effective management.  Most persons affected by by-laws are represented in the VLUM that can modify these rules.  Forest monitors are at least partially accountable to the users (and/or are the users).  Users who violate extraction/use by-laws receive sanctions in relation to seriousness and
context of offense  Conflict resolution mechanisms are in place.
JGI should review models for participatory capacity building by other groups in Kigoma district
(including its partner FZS, in its implementation of VICOBA) to identify ways to:  Assist each village to develop its own strategy for investment, building on the land use
planning process.  Help each village to develop participatory profiles that balance livelihood, conservation, and
(natural resource) governance dimensions. Ensure that these profiles are owned by the
communities.  Help district officials to build rapport through a renewed PRA process in selected
committed villages. JGI should provide support for training in participatory methods and
practice as needed.  Select village trainers by canvassing members of existing groups
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 115
 Cascade facilitative leadership skills from team through village trainers to community
members  Maintain overnight and/or on-going presence in villages, especially for change processes that
require support in initial stages.  Apply participatory “discovery learning” principles in all technology promotion. JGI should
look into Farmer Field School and related participatory approaches that demonstrate
benefits and allow results to speak for themselves
The emerging multi-district Steering Committee should be strengthened by bringing in village-level
representation.
4.MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE LEARNING
To support adaptive learning, forest monitoring data should be easily accessible to the public for
validation, for informing wide-based participation in decision-making, and for timely action by the
concerned village and district councils. Irregular patrols for validation of adequacy of regular patrols
and joint JGI and district patrols should be carried out to inform monitoring procedures, structures,
and collaboration.
Data from villages should flow to both JGI and the District Forest Offices.
In its revision of the PMP, JGI should reflect on how it measures and reports on results and
outcomes, with particular attention to how stakeholders can make use of this information and how
the capacity of decision-makers can be strengthened. JGI’s use of new technologies is already
exploring key aspects of this and should be continued.
The “testing” of livelihoods interventions raises issues that require further exploration before
lessons are articulated. While the project’s experience with coffee has yielded clear lessons, how to
apply the principles in other areas will require new discovery. Developing livelihood opportunities
requires developing strategic partnerships between communities or community-level groups and the
private sector. And, as for governance, learning how to apply principles—in this case, for quality
control—requires taking responsibility and learning from the consequences of one’s actions. How
the project should accompany beneficiaries or, for example, protect more vulnerable beneficiaries
from certain consequences, is not clear.
As one example, JGI should support the district capacity to monitor and create awareness among
SACCOS members to believe and participate in the SACCOS’ activities as owners, leaders, decision
makers, internal controlling body, beneficiary and promoters in:  Identifying and electing leaders  Management committee  Demanding, proposing, pushing  Criticizing, motivating and supporting the management  Promoting potential members by teaching the importance of SACCO and saving  Pressurizing the defaulters and forced them to pay back the loan on time
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 116
SACCOS should follow the principle of minimize operational expenses, minimize risks, cover its
costs and increase its yearly fair financial margin in order to expand its future services.
SACCOS should target to mobilize members and members saving. Members and elected
committees should work closely to mobilize their own financial resources from members.
Tracking SACCOs Performance may include the following indicators: Number of new members
joining in the reporting period (e.g., past 3 months), Percentage of active members who have saved
in the the past 3 months, Percentage of eligible members receiving loans, Effective repayment rate,
Loans past due greater than 3 months, and Quarterly growth in value of loan portfolio.
As noted in the Lessons Learned chapter of the main report, much of the learning that the program
is experiencing can be seen in the light of past lessons. Following is a summary of the lessons
highlighted in Community Based Conservation Experience in Tanzania: An Assessment of Lessons
Learned:
71  Past experience with different organizations, which have different agendas and whose mixed
messages, can lay groundwork for future conflicts and confusion. Project approaches and
time frame also create pressures for the project to “roll on regardless”, leaving the
communities effectively disengaged from the process.  A history of top-down project-based initiatives often leads to a “dependent and expectant”
mentality. It takes time for a project to facilitate a genuinely participatory process in such a
community.  Working with communities with a marginal base of natural resources presents greater
challenges. Poor communities are also vulnerable to the impact of easy, yet short term
“fixes” and are more difficult to persuade to become involved in an NRM program focused
on the long term.  Donor agendas, e.g., for conservation as more important than community development,
create pressure for the NGO to pay lip service to community issues and not integrate
community members sufficiently. (There is sometimes a conflict between the wish of donors
and the will of projects to respond to community development aspirations.)  The greater the number of stakeholders or the greater the cultural complexity and
heterogeneity, the more complex are the issues and the more time needed to unravel the
interests and fears of all those involved.  Particular challenges include developing leadership where there are limited levels of
education, representation and inclusion, e.g., of women and disadvantaged groups, and
capacity building of the project staff as facilitators as well as the capacity of community
leaders.  Politics often leads to leaders focusing on short-term ways to win votes rather than the long
term well-being for their constituents; politicians may also have hidden agendas.
71 International Resources Group, Ltd (2000), op. cit.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 117
ANNEX I: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS72
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE –VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (IR1/IR2)
(ENGLISH)
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location (village): ____________________________
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other
(specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: VLUP and bylaw development process, committee formation and members,
enforcement, decision-making, boundaries, conflict, policies, registration (Bring out stories.) Consider cross-cutting
topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education), outside support and “visitors”, organizational capacity-building
(leadership, working together, financial management, keeping records, etc.)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me about how this planning of your land use all began? What do you
remember community representatives saying? What things did you first think about? What
about other leaders (authorities, members of other groups, etc.) What conversations do you
remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 What do you remember about the planning process? Who were the persons that led it? How
were they chosen? Who was invited to meetings? Who participated in: Setting up the decision- making structure? Making the bylaws? How did you identify the objectives of the plan?  Are all of the different stakeholders committed to achieving the objectives of the plan? Who is
72 Following field testing, changes to the household survey and the FGD guides were made only in the Swahili
versions. These changes were not reflected back into the draft English versions. Furthermore, the evaluation team
often adapted its FGD guides on-site in relation to each group’s knowledge and understanding of specific themes.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 118
not committed? What about people from outside the village? What about government and
NGOs? What about political support?  Who participates in carrying out the land use plan? In enforcing its rules? Who represents the
village in talking with outsiders? How often does JGI visit? How often to District officers
visit? Other partners: ( weekly monthly quarterly rarely )
Democracy
 Is everyone in the village well informed of the issues and opportunities identified in the plan?
Gender  Were men and women involved? How did they participate? Are there women on the committee? What
do you remember?  What good things have happened for women? Who is benefitting more from the land use planning?
[e.g., men, women, children, elders, leaders, wealthy persons, PLHIVs?]
Transparency
 Are decision-making procedures known to all of the community members in the village? Are the
reasons for decisions transparent? How did you all decide on who has what responsibilities?  What is covered in the bylaws? Are the bylaws/rules known to outside stakeholders?
3. Benefits  What are some of the good things that have done with the land use plans? Have the land use
plans helped you solve any problems? How?  Have your received any training related to planning and managing land use? If yes, what
training did you receive? What have you done with what you learned?
4. Success stories  Do decision making and financial accounting and controls function effectively? Is data being
collected and used to inform management decisions? Do you know if any data was collected
on the situation when you began (baseline data)? Who collects data? Who keeps the data?
Who looks at it? Do you know how results from monitoring are used by the project?  Are mechanisms for enforcement effective? Are conflict resolution mechanisms being applied
successfully?  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen. What made these
successes possible?
5. Challenges  What were some of the challenges, concerns, and issues raised by different community
members or interest groups?  What are the most important challenges/issues facing the village now with respect to land and
resources? Is the plan addressing these issues?
6. Sustainability
 Have the Land Use Plan been approved by the appropriate authorities? Have community
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 119
leaders and district officers formally signed an agreement to collaborate in making the plan
work well?  Have any changes been made to the plan since it was approved? What changes?  Have the costs of carrying out the plan been identified? Are they realistic? Does the
Project support these costs? Do you know where the money will come from after the
project?  After the project ends, will the land use plans be used? Why or why not?  Do you know of anyone from your community who has dropped out of the land use
planning? Why?  What would you say about the land use planning process to someone from another
community who has never done land use planning?
7. Recommendations  If you had a chance to begin the land use planning process again (committees, bylaws,
enforcement, and others), what would you do differently and what would you do the same?
What’s something new or different you want to do in your role to make land use management
better? Why?  What would you not do again? Why not?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 120
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE –VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (IR1/IR2)
(SWAHILI)
Tathmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Agenda muhimu: Mpango wa matumizi ya ardhi, Sheria ndogo ndogo, Wajumbe wa kamati mbali mbali,
utendaji, maamuzi, mipaka, migogoro na sera. Tuta zingatia maswala mtambuka kama UKIMWI, Elimu ya
Mazingira, Msaada kutoka kwa wadau mbalimbali na kujenga uwezo katika (uongozi, ushirikiano, matumizi ya
rasilimali na utunzaji wa maelezo na nakala. tangulizi (Utambulisho)
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 121
1. Ushirikishwaji katika mradi  Tafadhali eleza mmbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Kinanani wanashiriki katika matumizi ya mbinu
mpya za kilimo bora?  Unakumbuka washiriki walisema nini? Mazungumzo gani unayakumbuka?  Unakumbuka nini katika mchakato huo? Nani walisimamia mchakato huo? Walichaguliwaje?
Nani walialikwa kwenye mkutano? Nani alishiriki katika: kutoa maamuzi, ya mbinu gani bora
zitumike katika kijiji chenu? Mlitambuaje mbinu hizo?  Je wadau wote wanashiriki kwa dhati katika kutekeleza mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Nani
hawashiriki kwa dhati? Vijiji vingine je? Vipi kuhusu serikali na asasi zisizo za kiserikali? Vipi
kuhusu wanasiasa?  Nani wanashiriki katika utekelezaji wa matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Nani
wanashiriki katika usimamizi na utekelezaji wa mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Mara ngapi
mnatembelewa na wafanyakazi wa JGI, Viongozi wa wilaya na wadau wengine? (kwa wiki,
mwezi, robo au mara chache sana)
Demokrasia
Je kila mmoja amepatiwa taarifa za kutosha kuhusu fursa zitokanazo na matumizi ya mbinu mpya
za kilimo bora?
Usawa wa kijinsia
 Je jinsia zote zilishirikishwa? Je zilishilikishwaje? Wanawake walishirikishwa katika kamati?
Unakumbuka nini kuhusu ushirikishwaji wa jinsia zote katika utekelezaji wa mbinu mpya za kilimo bora?  Mambo gani mazuri wanawake wamenufaika nayo kutokana na matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo
bora? Ni akina nani hasa walinufaika kutokana na matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? [mfano,
wanaume, wanawake, watoto, wazee, viongozi, matajiri au watu wanaoishi na VVU?
Uwazi  Utaratibu wa maamuzi kuhusu matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora uliwekwa wazi? Je sababu za
maamuzi huwekwa wazi? Je watu wote walipewa taarifa kuhusu fursa zitokanazo na matumizi ya mbinu
mpya za kilimo bora?
3. Faida
 Mambo gani mazuri mmenufaika nayo kutokana na matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Je
matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora zimesaidia katika kuongeza kiasi cha mazao na kuongezeka
kipato? Namna gani?  Je mmepata mafunzo juu ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Kama ndio, mafunzo gani mlipata?
Mmetumiaje mafunzo mlioyapata?
4. Mafanikio
 Je maamuzi, usimamizi na matumizi ya fedha katika mpango wa ardhi yanasimamiwa
kikamilifu? Taarifa zilikusanywa na kutumika katika maamuzi? Je, kabla mpango haujaanza
mlikusanya taarifa za mwanzo? Nani alikusanya taarifa hizo? Je nani anatunza taarifa hizo?
Nani anazitumia taarifa hizo? Je unafahamu jinsi gani taarifa za matokeo ya usimamizi wa mradi
zinavyotumika katika mradi wa matumizi bora ya ardhi?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 122
 Utaratibu gani hutumika kikamilifu katika usimamizi wa mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi?
Utaratibu wa utatuzi wa migogoro unatumika kikamilifu?  Je unaweza kutoa mfano wa mafanikio mliyoyapata? Nini chanzo cha mafanikio hayo?
5. Changamoto
 Je mna changamoto zozote zinazohusu mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi? Zitaje?  Je mnazitatuaje changamoto hizo?
6. Uendelevu
 Je mliridhia kuanza matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Je viongozi wa vijiji na wilaya
wanahamasisha matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora?  Gharama zilizotumika katika mchakato na utekelezaji wa matumizi ya mbinu mpya za
kilimo bora ziliainishwa? Je, zilikuwa sahihi? Je JGI inafadhili gharama hizi? Je, mradi
ukiisha gharama zitokanazo na matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora zitatoka wapi?  Je, baada ya mradi wa JGI kwisha mtaendelea kutumia mbinu mpya za kilimo bora?
Hapana, kwanini. Ndio kwanini.  Je unamfahamu mtu yeyote ambaye amejitoa katika mbinu mpya za kilimo bora? Kwanini
alijitoa?  Unapendekeza nini kwa watu kutoka vijiji vingine ambavyo havijaanza kutumia mbinu
mpya za kilimo bora?
7. Maoni/Tamati  Endapo utapatiwa fursa ya kuanzisha tena kutumia mbinu mpya za kilimo bora nini utakifanya
tofauti na nini utakirudia? Ni kitu gani kipya au tofauti ambacho ungefanya katika wajibu wako
ili kufanikisha matumizi ya mbinu mpya za kilimo bora zaidi? Kwa nini?  Nini hutakifanya tena? Kwa nini?
Kufunga: Je kuna mtu yeyote mwenye swali?
Asanteni kwa ushirikiano.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 123
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:DEFORESTATION DRIVERS
(IR3) (ENGLISH)
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location: ____________________________ District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other (specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: bylaw development process, committee formation and members, enforcement,
decision-making, boundaries, conflict, grazing, tree-cutting, burning, timber, charcoal-making, beekeeping (Bring out
stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (environmental education, policies)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me about what’s happening with the forest here? Is there any
deforestation? What’s causing that? Are some of these causes changing? Or have they been
the same for many many years?  Please, can you tell me about when the project came to talk about deforestation? What did you
first think about? What conversations do you remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 Are all of the important drivers identified in your VLUP? How did you choose the important ones?
Who were the persons that participated in identification of deforestation drivers? Please tell me about
mitigation. Is it based on bylaws? Is it based on activities like woodlots? Fuel-efficient stoves? What
other activities? Who participated in making the mitigation plan? How were they involved?  Are some stakeholders not in favor of mitigating some of the drivers of deforestation? Why
not? What about people from outside the village? What about government and NGOs? What
about political support for mitigating drivers?  How often does JGI visit to help with the activities? With FES? With woodlots? With other
activities? How often do District officers visit? Other partners: ( weekly monthly quarterly
rarely )
Democracy
 Does everyone in the village know about the different mitigating activities?  Can anyone get help planting a woodlot? Learning how to make a fuel-efficient stove? In other
mitigating activities?
Gender
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 124
 Were men and women involved equally in assessing the drivers and choosing mitigation activities? How
did they participate? What do you remember?  Have women benefitted from any of the mitigating activities? Have women been affected by any of the
bylaws? Who is benefitting more from the mitigation of key drivers of deforestation? [e.g., men,
women, children, elders, leaders, wealthy persons, PLHIVs?]
Transparency
 Are the reasons for decisions known to all of the community members in the village? Are the reasons
for decisions transparent? How did you all decide on who has what responsibilities?  What is covered in the bylaws? Do the bylaws address all of the drivers of deforestation? How
or how not? Are the bylaws/rules known to outside stakeholders?
3. Benefits  What are some of the good things that have happened because of mitigation of key drivers of
deforestation? Has mitigation helped you address the most important drivers of deforestation?
How?  Have your received any training related to mitigation of key drivers of deforestation? If yes,
what training did you receive? What have you done with what you learned?
4. Success stories  Do controls function effectively? Are records being kept? Who collects the data? Who keeps
the data? How do you use the records?  Are mechanisms for enforcement effective? Are conflict resolution mechanisms needed? If
so, are they being applied successfully?  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen. What made these
successes possible?
5. Challenges  What are the most important challenges facing the village now with respect to mitigation of key
drivers of deforestation?
6. Sustainability
 Do the appropriate authorities support your mitigation activities for key drivers of
deforestation? How?  Have the costs of the fuel-efficient stoves (time, money, in-kind?) been identified? The costs of
woodlots? Of other activities? Are they realistic? Does the Project support these costs? Do
you know where the money will come from after the project ends?  After the project ends, which mitigation activities will likely continue? Why or why not?  What would you say about drivers and mitigation to someone from another community?
7. Recommendations  If you had a chance to begin again, would you choose the same mitigation measures (rules?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 125
activities?) What would you do differently and what would you do the same? Why?  What would you not do again? Why not?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 126
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:DEFORESTATION DRIVERS
(IR3) (SWAHILI)
MWONGOZO WA MAZUNGUMZO NA: UTHIBITI WA UPOTEAJIWA MISITU
Tahmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Some key topics for this group:bylaw development process, committee formation and members, enforcement,
decision-making, boundaries, conflict, grazing, tree-cutting, burning, timber, charcoal-making, beekeeping(Bring out
stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (environmental education, policies)
Maswali
Opening (kibwagizo, na utambulisho)
1. Mahusiano na Mradi wa JGI  Tafadhali tueleze nini kilitokea katika misitu ya hapa ? Je kuna ukataji wa miti ya misitu ?
Kwaanini watu wanakata miti ? Ukataji wa miti kwa ajili ya kuni, mkaa au ujenzi unaendeleaje ?
Kwa kila mahitaji yamepungua au yameongezeka au yamebakia vile vile kwa miaka 4 iliyopita?  Lini Mradi wa JGI ulikuja kuanzisha shughuli za kuhifadhi misitu ? Watu walisemaje ? Tuambie
baadhi ya vitu unavyovikumbuka watu walivyosema ?
2. Ushirikishwaji  Je katika Ramani ya Ardhi ya kijiji yametengwa maeneo ya kutoa mahitaji ya kuni kwa ajili ya ujenzi,
mkaa na kupikia ? Kati ya mahitaji ya kuni, mkaa na ujenzi yapi ni Muhimu zaidi ?Mlikubaliana kwa
namna gani ? Nani alishiriki katika kutambua chanzo cha kukata miti ?  Kuhusu kuzuia ukataji miti, kuna sheria ndogondogo zilizopitishwa?au vitalu vya miti vimeanzishwa? Au
majiko sanifu ya kuni? Kuna kitu kingine ?Nani walishiriki katika kutengeneza mpango wa kupunguza
ukataji miti ovyo? Walishiriki kwa namna gani?
 Je, kuna watu wasiounga mkono shughuli hizi ? Kwa nini ? Kuna watu nje ya kijiji wasiounga
mkono ? Kwanini ? Halmashauri na asasi zisizo za kiserikali wana msimamo gani ? Je kuna
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 127
utashi wa kutosha wa kisiasa? (Serikali ya kijiji mpaka Halmashauri ya Wilay?)
 Mradi wa JGI umewasaidiaje katika kuanzisha na kuendeleza majiko sanifu ? Kuanzisha vitalu
vya miti ? Shuguli gani nyingine ?  Mara ngapi JGI wamewatembelea ? Mara ngapi halmashauri ya wilaya wamewatembelea?
Mara ngapi Wadau wengine wamewatembelea?: ( kila wiki, kila mwezi, kila robo mwaka,
mara chache kabisa )
Demokrasia
 Je, hapa kijijini kila mtu anafahamu shuguli za kukabiliana na ukataji hovyo wa misitu ?  Je kila mtu anaweza kusaidiwa na JGI kuanzisha kitalu cha miti ? Kujifunza namna ya kutengeneza jiko
sanifu la kuni ? au shughuli nyingine za kuzuia ukataji wa miti ?
Jinsia
 Je Wanawake na Wanaume walishirikishwa kwa usawa katika kubaini vitu vinavyo sababisha ukataji wa
miti na uvunaji wa misitu ? Wanaume walishirishwaje? Wanawake walishirikishwaje? Tuambie
unachokumbuka katika mchakato huo?  Je Wanawake wamefaidika vipi katika shughuli za kuzuia ukataji miti ? Je Wanawake wameathirika vipi
na sheira ndogondogo za kuzuia ukataji mit ? Nani anafaidika na uzuiaji wa ukataji miti na uvunaji wa
misitu ?  Nani anafaidika zaidi kutokana na shughuli za kuzuia ukataji miti hapa kijijini ? Mfano: Wanaume,
watoto, Wanawake, Wazee, viongozi au WAVIU?
Uwazi  Je, watu wote wanaelewa sababu za kuzuia ukataji miti ? maamuzi haya yaliwekwa wazi kwa wananchi ?
Nieleze kwa namna gani kijijini mlikubaliana kuhusu majukumu mbalimabali ya wanakijiji ?  Sheria ndogondogo ya kudhibiti uvunaji miti inasema nini ? Je inadhibiti maaeneo yote ya
mahitaji ya miti ? Kwanini ? Je sheria ndogondogo zinafahamika kwa wengine ? Kama nani ?,
3. Faida
 Ni vitu gani vizuri vimepatikana kutokana na kuzuia ukataji wa miti ? Je juhudi zenu
zimefanikiwa kudhibiti mahitaji yote ya miti ? (Kuni, ujenzi na mkaa)  Je, mliwahi kupata mafunzo juu ya kuzuia ukataji miti ?Kama ndiyo mafunzo gani ?  Maarifa uliyopata umeytumiaje ?
4. Ushuhuda
 Sheria zinafanya kazi vizuri ? Kuna kumbukumbu zozote za kazi ? nani anakusanya ?Nani
anazitunza ? Zinatumikaje ?  Je, kuna utaratibu wa kutekeleza sheria Ndogondogo ? Kuna utaratibu wa kutatua migogoro ?
Taratibu hizi zemefanikiwa kwa kiasi gani ? Toa mifano ya mafanikio. Sababu gani zilileta
mafanikio ?5. Changamoto
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 128
 Changamoto gani Muhimu kijiji kinaendelea kupambana nazo katika kuthibiti ukataji miti ovyo?
6. Uendelevu
 Mamlaka husika (Mwenyekiti, halmashauri wanaunga mkono juhudi hizi? Kwanini? Kwa
namana gani??  Je majiko sanifu ya kuni yana gharama gani kwa mtumiaji? (muda, pesa, nk) Je vitalu vya miti
ya kuni vina gharama gani kwa mkulima (muda, pesa, nk)? Hizi gharama ni za kweli au
visingizio ?  Je, JGI walichangia kwenye hizo gharama? Kama ndiyo, mradi ulivyokapokwisha hizi gharama
zitabebwa na nani? Mradi ulivyokwisha, shughuli zipi za kuzuia ukataji miti ziliendelea? Kwa
nini?  Kwa mtu ambaye hajawahi kushiriki shughuli kama hizi una nini cha kumsimulia?
7. Mapendekezo
 Ungekuwa na nafasi nyingine ya kuanzisha mradi huu, vitu gani ungefanya kwa namna
nyingine? Vitu gani usingebadili? Ungependa nafasi yako wewe binafsi ibadilike? Kwa namna
gani?  Nini usingekirudia kabisa ? Kwa nini ?
Mwisho: Je una swali ungependa kuniuliza leo ?
Naomba nitumie fursa hii kwa kuwashukuru kwa muda wenu na mjadala mzuri.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 129
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT
(IR4) (ENGLISH)
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location (village): ____________________________
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other (specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: bylaw development process, team formation and members, enforcement,
decision-making, conflict, policies (Bring out stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental
education), outside support and “visitors”, district-level capacity-building (leadership, financial management, keeping
records, etc.)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me about how this fire management team began? What do you
remember community representatives saying? What things did you first think about? What
about other leaders (authorities, members of other groups, etc.) What conversations do you
remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 What do you remember about the forest fire management planning? Who were the persons
that led it? How were they chosen? Who was invited to meetings? Who participated in: Setting
up the fire management team? Who participates in managing forest fires?  Are community members all in favor of forest fire management? Who is not in favor? What
about people from outside the village? What about political support—strong or weak? Why?  How often does JGI visit to help with fire management? How often to District officers visit?
Other partners: ( weekly monthly quarterly rarely )
Democracy
 How were members of forest fire management team selected?
Gender  How do men and women participate? Are there women on the team?  What good things have happened for women? Who is benefitting more from fire management?
Transparency  Is everyone in the village well aware about fire management activities?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 130
 Are you volunteers or are you compensated? How did you all decide on who has what
responsibilities? Are these things fair?
3. Benefits  What benefit does the community get from fire management? How do you benefit? (relevance)  Probe about how they use the benefit of their involvement in fire management.  Have your received any training related to forest fire management? If yes, what training did you
receive? What have you done with what you learned?  Have the forest fire management helped you solve any problems? How?
4. Success stories  How do you work together as a team? Is it effective? How? What records do you keep? Who
keeps them? How are they used?  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen. What made these
successes possible?
5. Challenges  What were some of the challenges you face as a team? What are you doing about these
challenges?  Do you know of anyone from your community who has dropped out of fire management?
Why?
6. Sustainability
 How much does it cost to run your team (time, money, in-kind)? Does the Project support
these costs? Do you know where the money will come from after the project?  After the project ends, what good things about fire management will likely continue? Why?  What would you say about the forest fire management to someone from another community
who don’t have forest fire management activities?
7. Recommendations  If you were going to another community to introduce forest fire management, what would you
do differently and what would you do the same? Why?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 131
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT
(IR4) (SWAHILI)
MWONGOZO WA MAZUNGUMZO NA: KUTHIBITI UCHOMAJI MISITU
Tahmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Agenda muhimu kwa kundi hili:Mpango wa matumizi ya ardhi, Sheria ndogondogo, Wajumbe wa kamati
mbalimbali, utendaji, maamuzi, mipaka, migogoro na sera. Tutazingatia maswala mtambuka kama Elimuya
Mazingira, Msaada kutoka kwa wadau mbalimbali na kujenga uwezo katika (uongozi, ushirikiano, matumizi ya
rasilimali na utunzaji wa maelezo na nakala.
Maswali
Utangulizi(Utambulisho)
1. ? Maswali ya Uhusiano na Mradi wa JGI  Tafadhali eleza mchakato wa kuandaa mpango wa kudhibiti moto ulivyoanza?  Ni nani alishirikishwa katika mchakato huu?  Unakumbuka washiriki walisema nini? Mazungumzo gani unayakumbuka?
2. Mchakato wa utengenezaji mpango wa kudhibiti moto ulifanyikaje?
Ushirikishwaji  Unakumbuka nini katika mchakato huo? Nani walisimamia mchakato huo?
Walichaguliwaje? Nani walialikwa kwenye mkutano? Nani alishiriki katika: kutoa
maamuzi, kutengeneza sheria ndogondogo? Mlitambuaje madhumuni ya mpango wa
kudhibiti moto?  Je wadau wote walishiriki kwa dhati katika kutekeleza malengo ya mpango huo? Nani
hawakushiriki kwa dhati? Vijiji vingine je? Vipi kuhusu serikali na asasi zisizo za kiserikali?
Vipi kuhusu wanasiasa?  Nani wanashiriki katika utekelezaji wa mpango? Nani wanashiriki katika usimamizi wa
sheria ndogondogo na kanuni za usimamizi wa mpango? Mara ngapi mnatembelewa na
wafanyakazi wa JGI, Viongozi wa Wilaya na wadau wengine? (kwa wiki, mwezi, robo au
mara chache sana)
Demokrasia
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 132
 Je wanaounda kamati ya kudhibiti moto waliachaguliwaje?
Jinsia
 Je, Wanawake na Wanaume wanashirikije? Je kuna wanawake kwenye kamati?  Je,wanawake wamenufaika na mambo yapo mazuri? Ni nani ananufaika zaidi?
Uwazi  Utaratibu wa maamuzi kuhusu udhibiti wa moto unafahamika kwa wanakijiji wote? Je sababu za
maamuzi huwekwa wazi? Ni namna gani mliweza kufanya maamuzi juu ya mgawanyo wa
majukumu katika mpango wa kudhibiti moto?
3. Manufaa
 Mambo gani mazuri mmenufaika nayo kutokana na mpango wa kudhibiti moto?  Je mpango wa kudhibiti moto umesaidia katika kutatua/kupunguza uharibifu wa misitu? Kwa namna
gani?  Uliza namna wanavyotumia manufaa yatokanayo na kudhibiti moto.  Je mmepata mafunzo juu ya mpango wa kudhibiti moto? Kama ndiyo, mafunzo gani mliyapata?
Mmeyatumiaje mafunzo mliyoyapata?
4. Mafanikio
 Mnafanyaje kazi kwa pamoja (kama timu)? Je kuna ufanisi? Kwa namna gani? Mnatunza
kumbukumbu zipi? Nani anayezitunza kumbukumbu hizo? Zinatumika kwa ajili ya kufanyia
nini?  Tafadhali nitajie mifano ya baadhi ya mafanikio uliyowahi kuyaona yakitokea kutokana na
kuwapo mpango huu. Kipi kilisababisha mafanikio hayo yapatikane?
5. Changamoto
 Timu yenu/kikosi chenu cha kudhibiti moto kimekumbana na changamoto zipi? Changamoto
hizo mnazishughulikiaje?  Je, unafahamu mwanajamii ambaye alijitoa katika kikosi cha kudhibitimoto? Kwa nini?
6. Uendelevu
 Nieleze kuhusu gharama za uendeshaji wa timu yenu (muda, fedha, kujitolea na nguvu)? Je
mradi unagharimiwa na nani? Unajua fedha zitatoka wapi?  Mradi huu ukifika mwisho, ni shughuli zipi za kudhibiti moto zinaweza kuendelea? Kwa nini?  Je, una maoni yapi kuhusu udhibiti wa moto kwa mtu au watu kutoka katika jamii nyingine
ambao hawajaanzisha shughuli zozote za kudhibiti moto?
7. Mapendekezo
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 133
 Kama ungepata fursa ya kwenda kuanzisha mpango wa kudhibiti moto sehemu nyingine,
mambo yapi ungeyafanya tofauti kabisa na yapI ungeyarudia? Kwanini?
Hitimisho: Je una maswali ungependa kutuuliza?
Ninakushuru(ni) kwa ushirikiano wako(wenu).
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 134
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:REDUCE ILLEGAL
EXTRACTION (IR5) (ENGLISH)73
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location (village): ____________________________
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other (specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: bylaw development process, enforcement, boundaries, conflict, laws and policies.
(Bring out stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education), outside support and
“visitors”, district-level capacity-building (leadership, working together, financial management, keeping records, etc.)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me about when you first began thinking hard about the rules for
extraction of natural resources? Hunting? Grazing? Cutting trees?  What do you remember about those first discussions?  What do you remember community representatives saying? What do you remember
authorities saying? What things did you first think about? What conversations do you
remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 Who were the persons that led efforts to reduce grazing? Cutting trees? Hunting? How did the
process happen? Who participated in making the bylaws? Who participates in enforcing the
rules? How did you identify the objectives to control grazing? (cutting trees? hunting? etc.)  Is everyone in the village in favor of achieving reducing illegal extraction? Who is not in favor?
Why? What about people from outside the village? What about political support?  How often does JGI visit to help with this? How often do District officers visit? Other
partners:
( weekly monthly quarterly rarely )
73 Due to field and sample constraints, a Swahili guide for this FGD was not created.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 135
Democracy
 How were the rules on illegal extraction (…) introduced in your villages?  How were the village members involved in the process of developing the rules?
Gender  Are men and women involved in reducing illegal extraction? How do they participate?  What good things have happened for women? Who is benefitting more from the reduction in illegal
extraction activities? [e.g., men, women, children, elders, leaders, wealthy persons, PLHIVs?]
Transparency  Is everyone in the village well informed about the rules governing illegal extraction?  Are the reasons for rules understood by everyone? How did you all decide on who has what
responsibilities?  What is covered in the rules? Are the bylaws/rules known to outside stakeholders?
3. Benefits  How have the rules on illegal extraction affected your household? How have you benefitted by
controlling illegal extraction? (relevance)  Has the reduction in illegal extraction helped you solve any problems? How?
4. Success stories  Are mechanisms for enforcement effective? Are conflict resolution mechanisms being applied
successfully? If yes, how? If not, what are the problems?  Are the fines collected effectively? Are they fair? What happens to the fines after they are
collected? Do you keep any records? What kind of records do you keep? Who collects the
data? Who keeps the data? Who looks at it? Do you know how the records are used? If yes,
how?  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen. What made these
successes possible?
5. Challenges  What are the one or two most important challenges facing the village now with respect to
illegal extraction? How do the village leaders address these issues?
6. Sustainability
 What does it cost to run patrols and protect the forest? What kinds of costs are they (time,
money, in-kind)? Does the Project support these costs? Where will the money will come from
after the project?  After the project ends, what good things enforcing resource protection will likely continue?
Why?
7. Recommendations
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 136
 If you had a chance to begin the controlling grazing, hunting, and tree cutting again, how would
you do it differently? What would you do the same? What’s something new or different you
want to do in helping make the forest better? Why?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 137
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE: AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
(IR6) (ENGLISH)
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location (village): ____________________________
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other
(specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: land use, new practices, contour farming, agroforestry, woodlots, nurseries,
coffee, honey, tenure (Bring out stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education),
extension and other outside support and “visitors”, farmer association capacity-building (leadership, working together, etc.)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me about the agricultural practices in this place? (What do you plant?
How do your farm?) Please, can you tell me about any new practices the project has helped
you with? What did you first think about? What conversations do you remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 What environmentally friendly agricultural practices are you aware of? How were they
promoted? Who was invited to meetings?  Have you adopted any environmentally friendly practices on your land? Why or why not?  Who else has adopted environmentally friendly agricultural practices? Why or not?  How often does JGI visit to help you with these practices? How often to District officers visit?
Other partners: ( weekly monthly quarterly rarely )
Transparency
 Does everyone in the village know about these practices?
Democracy
 Does everyone use these practices? Why or why not? Are there any rules about unfriendly
environmental practices? Does everyone follow these rules? Why or why not?
Gender  Have both men and women adopted these practices? How do they use them?  What good things for women have resulted from the practices? Who benefits more from
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 138
environmentally friendly agricultural practices? [e.g., men, women, leaders, wealthy persons, PLHIVs?]
3. Benefits  What are some of the good things that have come from using these practices? Have these
practices helped you solve any problems? How?  Have your received any training related to environmentally friendly agricultural practices? If yes,
what training did you receive? Was this training open to everyone? If not, why not? How were
people selected for training?
4. Success stories  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen with environmentally
friendly practices. What made these successes possible?
5. Challenges  What are some of the challenges you face in your agriculture? Do these new practices help you
with those challenges?  Does anything make it hard to use the new practices?
6. Sustainability
 If you compare your traditional practice with the environmentally friendly practice, what
changes do you see on your farm? Are the new practices worth the trouble? Why or not?  What are the costs of carrying out the new agricultural practices (time, money, in-kind)?
Are they realistic? Does the Project support these costs?  After the project ends, will the environmentally friendly agricultural practices be used?
Why or why not?  Do you know of anyone from your community who tried and then stopped using new
practices? Why?  What would you say about these new practices to someone from another community who
has never done them?
7. Recommendations  Is there anything about these practices that you would like to do differently? What is it? Why?  What would you not do again? Why not?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 139
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE: AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
(IR6) (SWAHILI)
MWONGOZO WA MAZUNGUMZO NA: MATUMIZI YA MBINU BORA ZA KILIMO
Tahmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Some key topics for this group:land use, new practices, contour farming, agroforestry, woodlots, nurseries,
coffee, honey, tenure (Bring out stories.) Consider cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education),
extension and other outside support and “visitors”, farmer association capacity-building (leadership, working together, etc.)
Maswali
Mwanzo: (Kibwagizo, utambulisho)
1. Maswali ya Mahusiano na Mradi wa JGI  Tafadhali eleza mchakato wa kuandaa mpango wa mbinu bora za kilimo ulivyoanza?  Ni nani alishirikishwa katika mchakato huu?  Unakumbuka washiriki walisemanini? Mazungumzo gani unayakumbuka?
2. Mchakato wa utengenezaji mpango wa kuanzisha mbinu bora za kilimo ulifanyikaje?
Ushirikishwaji  Unafahamu mbinu zipi za kilimo zilizoletwa na mradi ? Kwa namna gani zililetwa kijijini? Kama
mkutano ulitumika nani walihudhuria ?  Je kuna mbinu bora za kilimo mlizopkea? Kwa sababu gani?  Nani wengine wamepokea mbinu bora mpya za kilimo? Kwa nini?  Mara ngapi JGI wanawatembelea ? Mara ngapi halmashauri wanawatembelea? Mara ngapi
Wadau wengine wanawatembelea? Other partners: ( kila wiki, kila mwezi, kila robo mwaka,
mara chache kabisa
Uwazi  Je kila mtu hapa kijijni anazifahamu mbinu bora hizi za kilimo?
Demokrasia
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 140
 Je kila mtu anatumia mbinu hizi bora za kilimo? Kwa nini? Kuna sheria ndogondogo za kusimamia
utumiaji wa mbinu bora za kilimo? Je zinafuatwa ? Kwanini ?
Jinsia
 Je Wanawake na Wanaume wanazitumia mbinu bora za kilimo? Kwa namna gani?  Vitu gani vizuri vimepatikana kutokana na mbinu bora za kilimo kwa maendeleo ya Wanawake ? Nani
anafaidika zaidi kutokana na shughuli au miradi ya kuongeza kipato hapa kijijini ? Mfano: Wanaume,
watoto, Wanawake, Wazee, viongozi au WAVIU?
3. Faida
 Vitu gani vizuri vianaonekana vya kutokana na utumiaji wa mbinu bora za kilimo? Matatizo
gani yametatuliwa na mbinu hizi bora za kilimo? Toa mfano?  Je umepata mafunzo yeyote ya mbinu bora za kilimo? Kama ndiyo mafunzo gani ? Je mafunzo
yalikuwa kwa kila mtu au walengwa fulani? Nani hao ? Walichaguliwa kwa namna gani?
4. Ushuhuda
 Tafadhali tupe mifano ya vitu mlivyofanikiwa katika kutekeleza shughuli za kilimo kwa kutumia
mbinu bora? Sababu za mafanikio yenu ni nini?
5. Changamoto
 Kuna changamoto gani katika kilimo ? Mbinu bora za kilimo zimesaidiaje kupambana za
changamoto hizo?  Kuna kikwazo chochote katika kutumia mbinu mpya na bora za kilimo ?
6. Uendelevu au Uzima wa Shughuli  Kama ukilinganisha kilimo cha kabla ya mradi na kilimo ulichojifunza kutoka kwenye mradi
unaona mabadiliko gani shambani kwako? Unafikiri mbinu hizi mpya za kilimo zinafaa?
Kwa nini na namna gani?  Mbinu bora za kilimo ni mzigo kwa mkulima? (muda, pesa nk)? Gharama hizi ni za halisi?
Mradi wa JGI unachangia hizo gharama ?  Mradi utakapoisha nini kitaendelea kutumika katika mbinu bora za kilimo? Kwa nini ?  Unafahamu mtu hapa kijijini aliyeanza kutumia halafu baadae akaacha kabisa kutumia
mbinu bora za kilimo ? Kwa nini ?  Ukikutana na mtu ambaye hajawahi kutumia mbinu hizi bora za kilimo utamwambia nini ?
7. Mapendekezo
 Kuna chochote katika mbinu bora za kilimo utakifanya tofauti na sasa ?Kwa nini ?  Kuna kitu amabacho hutarudia ? Kwa nini ?
Closing: Je una swali la kutuuliza? Tunawashukuru kwa kushiriki katika majadiliano yetu
Asanteni
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 141
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:IMPROVED INCOMES (IR7)
(ENGLISH)
Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project Performance
Evaluation
Date: Location (village): ____________________________
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza Other (specify):__________
Informed Consent: I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you have done in
the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is voluntary and what you
tell me is strictly confidential. So that we don’t miss any ideas, may I tape record the discussion? We
won’t give any individual attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about an hour.
We are not going to compensate you for this. May I begin talking with you?
Some key topics for this group: woodlots, nurseries, coffee, honey, other enterprises (Bring out stories.)
Consider cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education), extension and other outside support and
“visitors”, organizational capacity-building (leadership, working together, financial management, keeping records, etc.)
Questions
Opening (Icebreaker, self-introductions)
1. Nature of Engagement sample queries  Please, can you tell me how do you make your livelihoods here in ___________? (Farming?
What crops? Livestock? What animals? Beekeeping? Trading? What products? Employment?
What kind of job? Charcoal-making or firewood? Tourism? Other business? What kind?)  Please, can you tell me about any new livelihood activity the project has helped you with
(activity? credit?) What did you first think about? What about other leaders (authorities,
members of other groups, etc.) What conversations do you remember?
2. How?
Participatory
 Who was invited to work with the project on environmentally friendly enterprises? How were
they chosen? Who participates in carrying out these income generating activities?  Who introduced environmentally friendly enterprises in your village?  How often does JGI visit? How often to District officers visit? Other partners: ( weekly
monthly quarterly rarely )
Democracy
 Is everyone in the village well informed of the issues and opportunities to engage in income generating
activities?  Did you choose to engage in these environmentally friendly enterprises?
Gender  Are men and women members of the SACCO? Of the producers association? Of the coop? Have
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 142
both men and women received training to develop skills on managing your business? How were they
chosen? What do you remember?  [Ask women: What kind of economic activity/business are you involved in? Have you received any
funding (e.g., credit) for your business?]  What good things have happened for women? Who is benefitting more from the income generating
activities in the village? [e.g., men, women, children, elders, leaders, wealthy persons, PLHIVs?]
Transparency
 Is everyone in the village well informed about availability of opportunities to get support for
environmentally friendly enterprises? To join a SACCO?
3. Benefits  What are some of the good things that have done with _______? (Be specific; identify the income
generating activity based on what they said earlier.) How has it helped you?  Have your received any training related to your enterprise? If yes, what training did you receive?
What have you done with what you learned?
4. Success stories  Do you make income from your environmentally friendly enterprise? Is your benefit very
good? Good? Not so good? No benefit?  In your SACCO, do decision making and financial accounting and controls function
effectively? What records are kept? Who collects the data? Who keeps the records? Who
looks at the records? How are the records used?  Do people pay back their loans? Why or why not?  Please give me some examples of some successes you have seen happen. What made these
successes possible?
5. Challenges  What challenges do you face in conducting your business? For women, is competition from
men a challenge? Lack of capital? Inexperience with business practices? What are the most
important challenges for someone doing an income generating activity? (Be specific, based on the
activities they’ve told you earlier: coffee? honey? other?) Is the project’s support addressing these
challenges?
6. Sustainability
 What environmentally friendly enterprises are likely to continue after the project ends? Why or
why not?  Do you know of anyone from your community who has dropped out of an income generating
activity? Why?  What would you say about _______ (be specific; identify the income generating activity) to someone
from another community who has never done it?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 143
7. Recommendations  If you had a chance to begin your enterprise again, what would you do differently and what
would you do the same? How would you like your role to change? Why?  What would you not do again? Why not?
Closing: Do you have any questions you would like to ask us?
Thank the respondents for participation.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 144
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTION GUIDE:IMPROVED INCOMES (IR7)
(SWAHILI)
MWONGOZO WA MAZUNGUMZO NA: UBORESHAJI WA KIPATO CHA KAYA
Tahmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Some key topics for this group:woodlots, nurseries, coffee, honey, other enterprises(Bring out stories.) Consider
cross-cutting topics (HIV/AIDS, environmental education), extension and other outside support and “visitors”,
organizational capacity-building (leadership, working together, financial management, keeping records, etc.)
Maswali
Ufunguzi (kichekesho, utambulisho)
1. Nanma ya Kujipatia Maisha (Maswali ya mfano)  Mnafanya shighuli gani kuendesha maisha yenu hapa_______ ? (kilimo ? Mazao gani?
Livestock? What Ugugaji? Mifugo gani? Nyuki? Biashara? Biashara ya nini ? Ajira ? Ajira gani?
Kuchoma mkaa au kuuza kuni ? Utalii? Nyingine ? Taja ?)  Tafadhali nieleze shughuli ya kuongeza kipato iliyowezeshwa au kuanzishwa na Mradi wa
Hifadhi ya Misitu na Matumizi Bora ya Raslimali wa JGI. Mwanzo mlitaka kufanya nini?
Vongozi wenu wa kijiji au wilaya nao walifikiria nini ? Mjadaal mkali unaokumbuka ulikuwa
kwenye kitu gani ?  2. Yafuatayo yalifanyikaje?
Ushirikishwaji  Nani walialikwa na mradi kutekeleza miradi rafiki kwa mazingira ? Walichaguliwaje…? Nani
wanashiriki kutekeleza miradi ya kuongeza kipato?  Nani alileta kwa mara ya kwanza miradi ya kiuchumi rafiki kwa mazingira hapa kijijini ?  Mara ngapi JGI wanawatembelea ? Mara ngapi halmashauri wanawatembelea? Mara ngapi
Wadau wengine wanawatembelea? Other partners: ( kila wiki, kila mwezi, kila robo mwaka,
mara chache kabisa )
Demokrasia
 Je, kila mtu hapa kijijini anafahamu kuhusu shughuli za fursa zilizopo za kufanya na mradi wa JGI ili
kujiongezea kipato ?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 145
 Je ulichagua shughuli za kuongeza kipato rafiki kwa mazingira ?
Jinsia
 Je kati ya wanachama wa SACCOS kuna Wanaume na Wanawake ? Je, kwenye vyama vya ushirika ?Je,
vyama vya wakulima? Je, kwenye vyama vya ushirika? Je, Wanaume na Wanawake wamewahi kupatiwa
mafunzo ya kuendesha biashara zao ? Walichaguliwa kwa njia gani ? Unakumbuka nini kwenye huo
uteuzi ?  Uliza Wanawake: Mnashiriki katika shughuli zipi ? Mlishawahi kupewa pesa kama mkopo au msaada ili
kuendeleza shughuli zenu?  Vitu gani vizuri vimepatikana kwa maendeleo ya Wanawake ? Nani anafaidika zaidi kutokana na
shughuli au miradi ya kuongeza kipato hapa kijijini ? Mfano: Wanaume, watoto, Wanawake, Wazee,
viongozi au WAVIU?
Uwazi  Je kila mtu kijijijni anafahamu kuwepo kwa fursa za kujiendeleza kibiashara kama vile VICOBA
3. Kufaidika
 Niambie, vitu gani vizuri umefanya kutokana na _______? ( mtajie shughuli waliosema
wanaifanya) Mapato ya mradi huo umetumiaje?  Uliwahi kupatiwa mafunzo ya kuendeleza mradi wako? Kama ndiyo mafunzo gani ? Maarifa
uliyopata kutokana na mafunzo hayo umeyatumiaje ?  4. Shuhuda
 Shughuli zenu za kiuchumi zina mapato ? Utasemaje kuhusu kiasi cha mapato yenu? Kizuri
sana ? Kiasi tu ? Au hakiridhishi ? Au hakuna kabisa?  Uthibiti wa mapato ni mzuri ? Kwa namna gani ?Mnatunza kumbukumbu za aina gani? Taarifa
za fedha zinatunzwa na nani ? taarifa hizi zinatumikaje ?  Ulipaji wa mikopo unaendeleaje? Kwa nini uko hivyo?  Tafadhali nieleze mifano michache ya mafanikio ambayo umeyaona? Ni kitu gani au vitu gani
unadhani vimekuwa chanzo cha mafanikio hayo ?
5. Changamoto
 Kuna changamoto zozote ? Je, wanawake wanapata ushindani kutoka kwa Wanaume ? au
upatikanaji wa mtaji ? Ukosefu wa uzoefu? Mjasiriamali anapata changamoto gani muhimu
kuendeleza shughuli za kuongeza kipato hapa? ( Uliza shughuli walitaja kama kilimo cha kahawa,
ufugaji nyuki, nk) Je, Mradi wa JGI ulisaidiaje kutatua changamoto hizi ?
6. Uendelevu
 Je, miradi yenu ya kiuchumi ina uzima ? Itaweza kuendelea baada ya mradi kwisha ? Kwa nini
unasema hivyo?  Je kuna mtu (au kikundi )aliwahi kujiondoa kwenye shughuli au mradi wa kujiongezea kipato?
Kwa nini alifanya hivyo?  Utamwambia nini mtu mwingine ambae hajawahi kufanya shughuli hii ?________________
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 146
(mtajie shughuli anayoifanya )?
7. Mapendekezo
 Ungekuwa na nafasi nyingine ya kuanzisha mradi huu, vitu gani ungefanya kwa namna nyingine
? Vitu gani usingebadili ? Ungependa nafasi yako wewe binafsi ibadilike ? Kwa namna gani?  Nini usingekirudia kabisa ? Kwa nini ?
Mwisho: Je una swali ungependa kuniuliza leo ?
Naomba nitumie fursa hii kuwashukuru kwa muda wenu na mjadala mzuri.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 147
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE – GENDER (SWAHILI)
MWONGOZO WA MAZUNGUMZO NA: JINSIA
Tahmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya Ukanda wa Gombe
na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania ________________________________________________________________________ Tarehe: Kijiji: ____________________________
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza (Weka alama ya V)
Kuomba Ridhaa. Jina langu ni (taja majina yako mawili)______, na mwenzangu_________ tunafanya kazi na JGI.
Tumekuja hapa kufanya tahmini ya mradi wa JGI, kwa maana ya kujifunza zaidi namna kazi zilivyotekelezwa na
changamoto zake katika kipindi cha miak 4 iliyopita. Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na taarifa utakazotupa zitakuwa siri. Ili
tusipoteze kitu chochote mtakachosema tunaomba tutumie kinasa sauti. (Onyesha tape recorder yako)? Uchambuzi wa
mazungumzo haya hatimaye hautaeleza fulani alisema nini? Mawazo ya jumla ndiyo yanayotumika.. Majadiliano yetu
yatachukua kiasi cha dakika 60 au saa moja tu. Hakuna malipo yatakayotolewa kwa kushiriki .
Je ndugu zangu, mnaniruhusu kuanza majadiliano? Ndiyo Hapana
Agenda muhimu: Mpango wa matumizi ya ardhi, Sheria ndogondogo, Wajumbe wa kamati mbali mbali,
utendaji, maamuzi, mipaka, migogoro na sera. Tutazingatia maswala mtambuka kama UKIMWI, Elimu ya
Mazingira, Msaada kutoka kwa wadau mbalimbali na kujenga uwezo katika (uongozi, ushirikiano, matumizi ya
rasilimali na utunzaji wa maelezo na nakala.
Maswali
Utangulizi (Utambulisho)
1. Ushirikishwaji sawa wa jinsia zote katika miradi  Tafadhali eleza mchakato wa ushirikishwaji sawa wa kijinsia katika kuandaa mipango ya uhifadhi
na kuborsha maisha? Ni nani alishirikishwa katika mchakato huu?  Unakumbuka washiriki walisema nini? Mazungumzo gani unayakumbuka?
2. Mchakato wa utengenezaji mpango wa ushirikishaji wa jinsia zote ulifanyikaje?
Ushirikishwaji  Unakumbuka nini katika mchakato huo? Nani walisimamia mchakato huo? Walichaguliwaje?
Nani walialikwa kwenye mkutano? Nani alishiriki katika: kutoa maamuzi? Mlitambuaje
madhumuni ya mpango wa kuhakikisha usawa wa kijinsia?  Je wadau wote wanashiriki kwa dhati katika kutekeleza malengo ya mpango huo? Nani
hawashiriki kwa dhati? Vijiji vingine je? Vipi kuhusu serikali na asasi zisizo za kiserikali? Vipi
kuhusu wanasiasa?  Nani wanashiriki katika utekelezaji wa mpango? Nani wanashiriki katika usimamizi wa mpango?
Mara ngapi mnatembelewa na wafanyakazi wa JGI, Viongozi wa wilaya na wadau wengine? (kwa
wiki, mwezi, robo au mara chache sana)
Demokrasia
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 148
Je kila mmoja amepatiwa taarifa za kutosha kuhusu fursa na mambo mbalimbali kuhusu mpango wa
ushirikishaji sawa wa kijinsia katika mipango ya uhifadhi?
Usawa wa kijinsia
 Je jinsia zote zilishirikishwa? Je zilishilikishwaje? Wanawake walishirikishwa katika kamati?
Unakumbuka nini kuhusu ushirikishwaji wa jinsia zote katika utelezaji wa mpango?  Mambo gani mazuri wanawake wamenufaika nayo? Ni akina nani hasa walinufaika na mpango
huu? [mfano, wanaume, wanawake, watoto, wazee, viongozi, matajiri au watu wanaoishi na
VVU?
Uwazi  Utaratibu wa maamuzi kuhusu matumizi ya ardhi unafahamika kwa wanakijiji? Je sababu za
maamuzi huwekwa wazi? Ni kwa vipi mliweza kufanya maamuzi juu ya mgawanyo wa majukumu
katika mpango wa matumizi ya ardhi?  Je, sheria ndogondogo zinasemaje kuhusu usawa wa kijinsia? Je sheria ndogondogo ziko wazi
kwa wadau wote?
3. Faida
 Mambo gani mazuri mmenufaika nayo kutokana na mpango huu? Je mpango wa ushirikishaji
sawa wa kijinsia umesaidia katika kutatua/kupunguza tofauti za uwiano katika ushiriki? Namna
gani?  Je mmepata mafunzo juu ya usawa wa kijinsia? Kama ndio, mafunzo gani mliyapata?
Mmeyatumiaje mafunzo hayo?
4. Mafanikio
 Je maamuzi, usimamizi na matumizi ya fedha katika mpango usawa wa kijinsia yanasimamiwa
kikamilifu? Taarifa zilikusanywa na kutumika katika maamuzi? Je, kabla mpango haujaanza
mlikusanya taarifa za mwanzo? Nani alikusanya taarifa hizo? Je nani anatunza taarifa hizo? Nani
anazitumia taarifa hizo?  Utaratibu gani hutumika kikamilifu katika usimamizi wa mpango wa usawa wa kijinsia? Utaratibu
wa utatuzi wa migogoro unatumika kikamilifu?  Je unaweza kutoa mfano wa mafanikio mliyoyapata? Nini chanzo cha mafanikio hayo?
5. Changamoto
 Je mna changamoto zozote zinazohusu mpango wa usawa wa kijinsia? Zitaje?  Je mnazitatuaje changamoto hizo?
6. Uendelevu
 Je kuna mpango uliopitishwa na mamlaka husika ili kushughulikia usawa wa kijinsia? Je
mpango huo umerasimishwa?  Je kuna mabadiliko yoyote mmefanya katika mpango huo? Mabadiliko gani mmefanya katika
mpango huo?
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 149
 Gharama zilizotumika katika mchakato na utekelezaji wa mpango ziliainishwa? Je, zilikuwa
sahihi? Je JGI inafadhili gharama hizi? Je, mradi ukiisha gharama za usimamizi wa mpango
huu zitatoka wapi?  Je, baada ya mradi wa JGI kwisha mpango huu utaendelea kutumika? Hapana, kwanini.
Ndio kwanini?  Je unamfahamu mtu yeyote ambaye amejitoa katika mpango huu? Kwanini alijitoa?  Unapendekeza nini kwa watu kutoka vijiji vingine ambavyo havina mpango wa kuhakikisha
usawa wa kijinsia
7. Maoni/Tamati  Endapo utapatiwa fursa ya kuanzisha tena mpango kama huu, nini utakifanya tofauti na nini
utakirudia? Ni kitu gani kipya au tofauti ambacho ungefanya katika wajibu wako ili kufanikisha
matumizi bora ya ardhi kuwa bora zaidi? Kwa nini?  Nini hutakifanya tena? Kwa nini?
Kufunga: Je kuna mtu yeyote mwenye swali?
Asanteni kwa ushirikiano.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 150
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDE - ENGLISH
______________________________________________________________________________
_______ Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem
Conservation Project in Western Tanzania
Instructions to Interviewers
Survey Objective: This questionnaire will be used to survey a limited number of community
members to understand better how well they know the project; how they were involved; how
well they observed women and men being equitably integrated; and what they perceived were
the main benefits. Information collected will be entered into a database, processed, analyzed,
and interpreted alongside the in-depth qualitative information (e.g., on challenges, lessons
learned, and recommendations) being collected through FGDs and In-depth interviews.
The survey will randomly select five to ten beneficiary household members from each selected
village, adjusted to ensure coverage of households where members have participated in key
activities. In each household both female and male partners will be interviewed separately.
One-member household interviews shall be conducted in cases where one household member
declines or is absent during the day of visit.
Among the project’s key activities are household-level conservation practices, compliance with
bylaws, participation in village level land use planning, income associated with conservation
enterprises or activities, and improved health and health education concerning HIV/AIDS.
The questionnaire is semi-structured with six sections. Some questions may not be applicable to
some respondents and skips are indicated on the side. Please circle the most appropriate
response.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project in Western
Tanzania 151
Section I: Introduction and identification Date:
Good morning sir/madam. I am ______, working with JGI. We have come to learn what you
have done in the last four years with conservation and livelihoods. Your participation is
voluntary and what you tell me is strictly confidential. We won’t give any individual
attribution to what you say. We might talk together for about a half-hour. I am not going to
compensate you for this. May I ask you some questions? Yes No
District: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza
Division Name ______________ Ward name: ________________ Village
name:___________________ Name of Respondent (optional): __________________________ Gender: 1 Male [ ] 2:
Female [ ]
Job Title/Occupation: ________________________________________________________________
Section II: Relationship to the Project
1 Are you aware of the Conservation Project
activities?
Yes No If No SKIP to Section III
2 If Yes, What activities? Select from list:  Tree planting activities  Land Use Planning
 Firefighting
 HIV/AIDS
 Income generation activities  Other
3 Have you participated in any of these
activities?
Yes No If No SKIP to Q 5
4 If Yes,
What activities have you participated in?
Select from list:  Tree planting activities  Land Use Planning
 Firefighting
 HIV/AIDS
 Income generation activities  Other
5 Did you participate in any way in designing the
Conservation Project that began four years
ago?
Yes No
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 152
Section III. Participation in Project Implementation (See also Section 2, Question 2.)
6 Have you participated in project activities? Yes No If No SKIP to
7 If yes, in what capacity? Select from list: forest monitors, land use
planners, village council, etc.; list to be
completed with inputs from partners)
8 Have you participated in the development of
Land Use Plans?
Yes No
9 Are you aware of any improved agricultural or
land use practices or new technologies that the
project helped with?
Yes No If No SKIP to Q 13
10 If Yes, what improved practices or technologies? Select from list:  Contour farming
 Improved coffee processing
 Improved beekeeping
 Woodlot development  Fuel-efficient stoves  Monitoring tools (phones,
tablets)  Other (specify)
11 Has your household used any new practices or
technologies?
Yes No If NO, skip to Q 13
12 If Yes, what practices or technologies Select from list:  Contour farming
 Improved coffee processing
 Improved beekeeping
 Woodlot development  Fuel-efficient stoves  Monitoring tools (phones,
tablets)  Other (specify)
13 What kinds of benefits has your household
received from this practice during the time of
the project?
Select from list:  Financial  In-kind
 Training
 Material  Other (specify)
14 How were the benefits used? Select from list:
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 153
 Education
 Health
 Social  Construction
 Other (specify)
15 Who decides how to use the money you get
from the project related activities? Decided by…
1.Head of Household (M)
2.Head of Household (F)
3. Jointly (M and F)
4.Other:_____________
16 Does the Conservation Project have a specific
focus on women?
[interviewers could record the information and then code
the answer to the question: Yes, respondent thinks project
focuses on women, or No, or Not sure ]
Yes
No
Not sure
17 Does the Conservation Project have a specific
focus on men?
Yes
No
Not sure
18 Have women been involved in the
implementation of project activities?
Yes No If No SKIP to Q 20
19 If Yes, In what activities have women been
involved?
Select from list:  Tree planting activities  Land Use Planning
 Firefighting
 HIV/AIDS
 Income generation
activities  Other
20 Do you know of any members of your
community who have dropped out of project- supported groups or activities?
Select from list:  Tree planting activities  Land Use Planning
 Firefighting
 HIV/AIDS
 Income generation
activities  Other
21 Did your community sign agreements with the Yes
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 154
Conservation Project as a condition for receiving
project support?
No
Not Sure
22 Have you participated in HIV/AIDS activities? Yes No If No SKIP to Q 24
23 If yes, which activities? 1.Training
2.Condom distribution
3.Other (specify): ___________________
__________________________________
Section IV. Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation
24 Is a member of your household involved in monitoring? Yes No
Section V. Project Results
25 Do you know of any rules and regulations supporting
forest management and land use?
Yes No Not sure
26 As a result of the Conservation Project, are you aware of
any new rules made by the Council to conserve forests
and the things living in them?
Yes No Not sure
27 If yes, What bylaws or rules are you aware of? Select from list:  Forest management  Water  Farmland
 Settlement  Grazing land
 Use of fire
 Other (specify):
Section VI: Conclusions: Recommendations
28 If this project was to start again or
continued into the futures what things
would you recommend to be carried
over as it is?
Select from list:  Tree planting activities  Land Use Planning
 Firefighting
 HIV/AIDS
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 155
 Income generation activities  Other (specify): _____________________ Many thanks for your time and valuable contribution to our understanding.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 156
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDE - SWAHILI
DODOSO LA KAYA
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
Tathmini ya Mradi wa Kuboresha Maisha ya Jamii na Hifadhi ya Mazingira ya Misitu Ya
Ukanda wa Gombe na Ugalla Magharibi mwa Tanzania
MAELEKEZO: FOMU 6 ZIJAZWE KILA KIJIJI. FOMU YA KWANZA IJAZWE NA MMKITI WA
KIJIJI. HALAFU MWENYEKITI AELEKEZE NYUMA 5 ZA WAKAZI WALIOHUSIKA KW KARIBU
AU MOJA KWA MOJA NA MRADI.
HII LAZIMA IZINGATIWE
Instructions to Interviewers
Survey Objective: This questionnaire will be used to survey a limited number of community
members to understand better how well they know the project; how they were involved;
how well they observed women and men being equitably integrated; and what they
perceived were the main benefits. Information collected will be entered into a database,
processed, analyzed, and interpreted alongside the in-depth qualitative information (e.g., on
challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations) being collected through FGDs and In- depth interviews.
The survey will randomly select five to ten beneficiary household members from each
selected village, adjusted to ensure coverage of households where members have
participated in key activities. In each household both female and male partners will be
interviewed separately. One-member household interviews shall be conducted in cases
where one household member declines or is absent during the day of visit.
Among the project’s key activities are household-level conservation practices, compliance
with bylaws, participation in village level land use planning, income associated with
conservation enterprises or activities, and improved health and health education concerning
HIV/AIDS.
The questionnaire is semi-structured with six sections. Some questions may not be
applicable to some respondents and skips are indicated on the side. Please circle the most
appropriate response.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 157
Sehemu I: Utambulisho Tarehe:
Salaam: Mimi ni ______, tunafanya tathminin ya JGI. Tumekuja kujifunza kutkana na kazi zenu
za hifadhi, matumizi bora ya ardhi na raslimali nyingine za asili katika miaka mine iliyopita.
Kushiriki kwako ni hiari na maelezo yako yatakuwa siri. Hatutasema Fulani alisema hivi au vile
katika ripoti ya mwisho. Mazungumzo yetu yatachukua kama nusu saa tu. Hakuna malipo
yatakayopatikana kutokana
na mazungumzo haya Je unaniruhusu niendelee na maswali ? Ndiyo Hapana
Wilaya: Kigoma Mpanda Nsimbo Uvinza
Tarafa ______________ Kata : ________________ Kijiji:___________________
Jina (optional): __________________________ Jinsia: 1 M [ ] 2: Ke[ ]
Kazi/Shughuli ya Maisha : ________________________________________________________________
Sehemu II: Uhusiano na Mradi wa JGI
1 Je unafahamu shughuli za mradi wa uhifadhi
wa JGI ?
Ndiyo
Hapana
Kama Hapana NENDA
Sehemu ya III
2 Kama ndiyo, shughuli ni zipi? Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Upandaji miti  Upimaji wa ardhi ya kijiji  Kuthibiti uchomaji misitu
 UKIMWI  Shughuli za kuongeza kipato
 Nyingine
3 Je, umewahi kushiriki katika baadhi ya
shughuli hizo ?
Ndiyo
Hapana
Kama Hapana
Nenda Q 5
4 Kama Ndiyo,
Umeshiriki katika shughuli zipi?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Upandaji miti  Upimaji wa ardhi ya kijiji  Kuthibiti uchomaji misitu
 UKIMWI  Shughuli za kuongeza kipato
 Nyingine
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 158
5 Je uliwahi kushiriki katika kubuni mradi wa
hifadhi na uendelezaji bora wa raslimali za asili
wa JGI uliofanyika miaka 4 iliyopita ?
Ndiyo Hapana
Sehemu ya III. Kushiriki katika Utekelezaji (linganisha na majibu ya sehemu ya 2 Swali la
2.)
6 Je, umewahi kushiriki katika shughuli za
mradi wa hifadhi na uendelezaji bora wa
raslimali za asili wa JGI?
Ndiyo Hapana Kama Hapana
Nenda 8
7 Kama Ndiyo, katika nasafi gani? Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)
Mwenyekiti wa kijiji
Mjumbe Baraza la kijiji (VEC)
Mjumbe_ halmashauri ya Serikali ya kijiji
Mjumbe Kamati za Upimai Ardhi za kijiji
Mjumbe: kikosi cha kuzuia uchomaji misitu
Nyingine
(Taja)________________________________ 8 Je umewahi kushiriki katika mchakato
wa kupima ardhi ya kijiji ?
Ndiyo Hapana
9 Je, unafahamu mbinu bora za kilimo
zinazotekelezwa na mradi huu ?
Ndiyo Hapana Kama Hapana
Nenda Q 13
10 Kama Ndiyo, unafahamu
mbinu/teknologia zipi mpya zilizokuja
na mradi huu?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Kilimo cha kuzuia mmomonyoko
 Kuongeza thamani ya kahawa
 Ufugaji bora wa nyuki  Upandaji wa miti kwa ajili ya nishati  Majiko sanifu ya kuni  Ufuatiliaji (Simu, kompyuta)  Nyingine (Taja)
11 Je , mke au mume wako anazitumia hizi
mbinu/teknologia mpya?
Ndiyo Hapana Kama HAPANA,
Nenda Q 13
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 159
12 Kama Ndiyo, mbinu/teknologia zipi
mpya anazotumia?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Kilimo cha kuzuia mmomonyoko
 Kuongeza thamani ya kahawa
 Ufugaji bora wa nyuki  Upandaji wa miti kwa ajili ya nishati  Majiko sanifu ya kuni  Ufuatiliaji (Simu, komputa)  Nyingine (Taja)
13 Wewe au kaya yako imefaidika na nini
kutokana na mbinu au teknlogia hizi
mpya katika miaka 4 iliyopita?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Fedha
 Huduma
 Mafunzo
 Vifaa
 Nyingine(taja) _______________________________
__ 14 Kile ulichofaidika nacho umekitumia kwa
kazi gani nyingine?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Boresha Elimu
 Boresha Afya
 Mambo mengine ya kijamii  Ujenzi  Nyingine (Taja )_____________________
15 Katika kaya yako maamuzi ya namna ya
kutumia fedha au raslimali yanafanywa
na nani ?
1.Mume
2.Mke
3. Mume na Mke
4.Nyingine Taja:_____________
16 Je, mradi wa hifadhi na uendelezaji bora
wa raslimali za asili wa JGI una utaratibu
maalum wa kushikisha Wanawake ?
Ndiyo Hapana Sina Uhakika
[interviewers record the response. Then code answer:
Ndiyo, respondent thinks project focuses on women, or
Hapana, or Sina Uhakika]
17 Je, mradi wa hifadhi na uendelezaji bora
wa raslimali za asili wa JGI una utaratibu
maalum wa kushikisha Wanaume ?
Ndiyo Hapana Sina Uhakika
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 160
18 Je, Wanawake wameshirikishwa katika
utekelezaji wa mradi huu wa hifadhi na
uendelezaji bora wa raslimali za asili wa
JGI?
Ndiyo
Hapana
Kama Hapana nenda S 20
19 Kama Ndiyo, Wanawake
wameshirikishwa katika shughuli gani
mahsusi?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Kupanda miti  Kupima ardhi ya vijiji  Kukinga uchomaji misitu
 UKIMWI  Shughuli za kiuchumi (SACCOS)  Nyingine
(taja)__________________________
20 Je unfahamu mtu au watu waliojitoa
kwenye shughuli za mradi huu? Kama
Ndiyo walijitoa katika shughuli gani ?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Kupanda miti  Kupima ardhi ya vijiji  Kukinga uchomaji misitu
 UKIMWI  Shughuli za kiuchumi (SACCOS)  Nyingine
(taja)__________________________
21 Je, kijiji chenu kilitiliana mkataba na
mradi wa hifadhi na uendelezaji bora wa
raslimali za asili wa JGI kabla ya kuanza
kushirikishwa au kufadhiliwa?
Ndiyo
Hapana
Sina Uhakika
22 Je umewahi kushiriki katika shughuli za
kuopambana na UKIMWI?
Ndiyo Hapana Kama Hapana Nenda S
24
23 Kama Ndiyo, shughuli zipi ? 1.Mafunzo
2.Usambazaji wa kondomu
Nyingine
(taja)_____________________________
Sehemu ya IV. Ushiriki katika Ufuatiliaji na Tathmini
24 Katika kaya hii, kuna mtu anayeshiriki katika ufuatiliaji
na tathmini ya mradi wa hifadhi na uendelezaji bora wa
Ndiyo Hapana
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 161
raslimali za asili wa JGI?
Sehemu ya V. Matokeo ya Mradi
25 Je unafahamu sheria zozote ndogondogo zinazolinda
hifadhi ya misitu na matumizi ya ardhi ya kijiji?
Ndiyo Hapana
Sina Uhakika
26 Kutokana na kazi za huu mradi wa hifadhi ya misitu na
uendelezaji bora wa raslimali za asili wa JGI,
unafahamu sheria ndogo Ndogo zilizotungwa na
halmashauri au kijiji kuhifadhi misitu na viumbe vyote
vilivyomo ?
Ndiyo Hapana
Sina Uhakika
27 Kama Ndiyo, taja sheria unazozijua ? Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Hifdahi ya Misitu
 Hifadhi ya vyanzo vya maji  Mipaka ya Mashaba
 Mipaka ya makaazi  Mipaka ya maeneo ya malisho
 Matumizi ya moto
 Nyingine
(taja):________________
Sehemu ya VI: Hitimisho na Mapendekezo
28 Kama huu mradi unge anza tena upya
au kuendelezwa ungependekeza vitu
gani viendelee kutekelezwa KAMA
vilivyo- bila kubadilishwa ?
Chagua anavyotaja (Usimsomee)  Kupanda miti  Kupima ardhi ya vijiji  Kukinga uchomaji misitu
 UKIMWI  Shughuli za kiuchumi (SACCOS)  Nyingine (taja)_________
Nakushukuru sana kwa kunivumilia na kujibu maswali yangu.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 162
ANNEX J: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Table J-1: Data Collection Timeline
Date Activity
22 July (Tuesday) Introductory meeting with USAID (joint meeting together with SCALE Evaluation Team
Leader)
Preparation for preliminary inception meeting with USAID
23 July (Wednesday) Inception Meeting with USAID
Internal discussion (Team Leaders of JGI and SCALE Evaluations)
24 July (Thursday) Meeting and introductory discussions with team members
Revision of Design and Methodology
25 July (Friday) Key informant interviews (KIIs):
Yassin Mkwizu, Norwegian Embassy
Freddy Kimaro, Jane Goodall Institute (Dar es Salaam)
Team meeting
26 July (Saturday) Revision of Design and Methodology matrix
Document review
27 July (Sunday)
28 July (Monday) Finalize Evaluation Design and Methodology, including draft instruments for KIIs, FGDs,
and HH survey
29 July (Tuesday) Deliverable: Evaluation Design and Methodology submitted (revised version
incorporating feedback from USAID; draft instruments for KIIs, FGDs, and HH mini- survey; and contributions from local team members)
Evaluation Design and Methodology approved with minor changes
30 July (Wednesday) Travel to Kigoma (Turner, Riwa, and William)
31 July (Thursday) Deliverable: Inception Meeting with 25 stakeholders (officials from all four districts, JGI
staff, and partners)
1 August (Friday) Review of suggestions from Inception Meeting related to selection of sites and themes
Planning
2 August (Saturday) Review documents with respect to sites and themes in light of Inception Meeting
suggestions
3 August (Sunday) Revise Draft HH survey to conform more closely with USAID guidance (Kumar, 1990, as
revised)
Finalize Team Planning and Training Meeting for 4 and 5 August
4 August (Monday) Travel to Kigoma (Kigenza, Msangi and Mallya)
Team planning and training meeting
5 August (Tuesday) Team planning meeting
Meet with JGI
6 August (Wednesday) Finalize tools
Practice using tools (“dry run”)
7 August (Thursday) Test tools in Chankele village
Discuss results of testing
Initiate communications for visit to Mpanda (JGI)
8 August (Friday) Travel from Kigoma to Mpanda
GOT Holiday
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 163
9 August (Saturday) Katambike
10 August (Sunday) Document review and planning
11 August (Monday) Vikonge
12 August (Tuesday) Bugwe
13 August (Wednesday) Nsimbo DC focus group discussion
Mpanda DC focus group discussion
Travel from Mpanda to Kigoma
14 August (Thursday) Synthesis of Nsimbo and Mpanda districts
Revise plans for visiting remaining villages
15 August (Friday) Kigoma DC focus group discussion
Uvinza DC key informant interviews
Kazuramimba
16 August (Saturday) Travel to Mwamgongo by boat
Overnight at Gombe
17 August (Sunday) KII: Chief Warden, Gombe NP
18 August (Monday) Return by boat from Gombe to Kigoma
Visit Kigalye on way back
19 August (Tuesday) Kalinzi
Discuss preliminary findings with JGI program director
20 August (Wednesday) Kirando
Ilagala
KIIs with Konyavu, District Cooperative Officer, GM of Hilltop Hotel, CRDB, and
Twitunge SACCOS
21 August (Thursday) Kasuku
Focus group discussion with JGI Team
22 August (Friday) Key informant interviews with JGI Director and with TNC
23 August (Saturday) Bubango
Key informant interview with UPP Director
24 August (Sunday) Final preparations for Feedback Meeting
25 August (Monday) Feedback meeting with 46 stakeholders, at JGI in Kigoma
Key informant interview with FZS
26 August (Tuesday) Synthesis, write-up and prepare for out-briefing
Follow-up field visit to sites in Kigoma and Uvinza
27 August (Wednesday) Return from Kigoma to Dar es Salaam
28 August (Thursday) Out-briefing at USAID, with USAID and JGI staff
29 August (Friday) Final in-country wrap-up with team before Team Leader’s departure to US
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 164
ANNEX K: MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 165
ANNEX L: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest disclosure forms for the evaluation team are on file with dTS. Please contact dTS
at info@onlinedts.com with any questions.
Performance Evaluation of the Landscape-Scale Community Centered Ecosystem Conservation Project 166
U.S. Agency for International Development/Tanzania
686 Old Bagamoyo Road, Msasani
Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Tel: +255 22 229 4490
Fax: +255 22 266 8421
www.usaid.gov/tanzania