October 22, 2014
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS).
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE SCALING UP
CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOODS EFFORTS IN NORTHERN
TANZANIA (SCALE-TZ) PROJECT
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ 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, 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
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project iii
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE SCALING UP
CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOODS EFFORTS IN
NORTHERN TANZANIA PROJECT
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
October 22 2014
DISCLAIMER
This publication was prepared independently by Frank Sullivan (Team Leader), Regina Apiyo
(Evaluation Specialist), and Samuel Mtoka and Fabian Musila (Subject Matter Specialists) 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.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project iv
ACRONYMS
AAC Authorized Association Consortium
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
BRN Big Results Now
CCRO Certificate of Customary Rights of Occupancy
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CfW Cash for Work
DO Direct Observation
dTS Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS)
ET Evaluation Team
FG Focus Group
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GoT Government of Tanzania
GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German International Development
Cooperation)
INGO International Non-governmental Organization
IR Intermediate Result
KII Key Informant Interview
LNGO Local Non-governmental Organization
LOP Life-of-Project
LUP Land Use Plan
MAA Inyuat E Maa (Local NGO)
MBK Mazingira Bora Karatu (Local NGO)
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NRM Natural Resource Management
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
REDD+ Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RFP Request for Proposal
SCALE Scaling up Conservation and Livelihood Efforts
SO Strategic Objective
SOW Scope of Work, also Statement of Work
TANAPA Tanzania National Park
TLCT Tanzania Land Conservation Trust
TMKNE Tarangire-Manyara-Kilimanjaro-Natron Ecosystem
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UCRT Ujamaa Community Resource Trust
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VGS Village Game Scout
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WD Wildlife Division
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Scaling up Conservation and Livelihood Efforts in Northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ) is a five-year, $9.2
million project targeting conservation promotion on over 55,000 km2 of land to an estimated population of
240,000 in predominantly pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities. The African Wildlife Foundation
(AWF) implements SCALE-TZ. This is the final evaluation of the project that ends on November 30, 2014.
The purpose of the evaluation is to inform project donors and partners on achievements, outcomes, the
effectiveness of the project design, sustainability of the approaches, and potential for scale-up. Key
evaluation questions were: the relevance and scale of project targets; effectiveness of the project approach;
strengths and weaknesses of project implementation; gender success; program monitoring and oversight;
constraints and opportunities; recommendations and lessons learned; success in scaling up, and; progress
toward sustainability.
Field visits were made to 20 sites, 16 villages selected on a stratified random sample by the Team Leader
based on geographic and agro-ecological criteria, plus four sites proposed by AWF. A variety of data- gathering methods were used: 21 key informant interviews (KII) were carried out; 45 focus group discussions
(FGD) and 149 mini-surveys were conducted. Direct observation was used to corroborate village-reported
results, as follows.  Makame is a fledgling wildlife management area (WMA) with strong leadership and high community buy￾in that faces substantial challenges in revenue generation, communication, and operational costs in a
highly resource-poor ecological niche.  Three Kolo Hills communities show different levels of success in conservation, economic development, and women’s empowerment: one is successful on all three dimensions; the other two are less successful, exhibiting lower achievement in one area or another.  There is a crisis of leadership in the Burunge WMA due, in part, to substantial local political interference
that is exacerbated by a dramatic fall-off in WMA revenue brought about by a Wildlife Division (WD)
decision to centralize resource collection.  Manyara Ranch pasture and wildlife have improved since AWF assumed ranch management. The ranch
faces a host of complex challenges, but its conservation function as a corridor for Tarangire/Manyara
wildlife is indisputable. While two communities to the west are quite happy with their ranch association, three to the east are not.  In Karatu Hills, Mazingira Bora Karatu (MBK), a local non-governmental organization, is achieving visible
success in small-scale soil conservation and tree planting.  The Enduimet WMA reports high satisfaction with village game scout (VGS) accomplishments, which
includes substantial revenue distribution, as well as widespread perception of significantly less poaching. Several villages, however, still experience worrisome local leadership issues.  Substantial improvements in gender equity have been made, as has a good start in decreasing HIV/AIDS
stigma and bringing about early changes in reducing high-risk community behaviors.  The project achieved a clear economic impact and met most planned targets, as of FY13.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project vi
 Grant management has been appropriate, although sub-grant financing was far lower than originally
planned due, in part, to unanticipated costs in other line items. Project reporting has been comprehensive, albeit sometimes hard to follow.
The project has made progress toward many of its original goals: consolidating existing WMAs, promoting
the formation of new WMAs, undertaking watershed conservation activities, and supporting improvements in
gender and HIV/AIDS. It faces considerable “work in progress” difficulties. Of five areas, two WMAs have
serious leadership issues, one has a tenuous revenue stream, one was formed too quickly, and at least one
WMA-in-formation has been judged too big to manage. Manyara Ranch faces substantial problems from
disgruntled communities nearby. Evaluation results suggest that when one probes anti-poaching successes
too deeply, the picture is less sanguine than initial VGS comments would suggest. And, for as much as has
been accomplished, the project has fallen short in several important wildlife protection objectives. WD
centralization of revenue collection may well be the biggest threat to WMAs in the history of the movement.
Landscape conservation is a sound concept, but it introduces the problems of effectively managing a very
complex set of activities. The evaluation team believes it is likely unrealistic to expect one implementing
organization to have in-house expertise to cover all the dimensions required to achieve success. Highly
nuanced trade-offs between goals and strategies, like water used for crop irrigation not reaching the
ecologically vital Tarangire River, higher wildlife-caused human fatalities, increased elephant destruction, and
more predator raids, also complicate matters. There are no easy answers to such conundrums.
Five high-level recommendations are proposed:
1. Follow-on activity in this landscape should continue with current program elements, adding back those
that were part of the original project design (including water and livestock improvement), and introducing
new program concepts. 2. Follow-on activity in this landscape should expand project actors through stronger sub-grant or fee-for- service mechanisms.
3. Follow-on activity in this landscape should balance managerial and technical interventions.
4. USAID should actively advocate with the Government of Tanzania until WD’s centralized revenue
collection is modified in favor of substantial immediate local collection.
5. USAID should continue supporting the landscape conservation sector, continuing the multi-sector, multi- ecological niche programming required by the landscape’s complexity.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project vii
CONTENTS
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................v
Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
1. Background and Project Formulation................................................................................................... 1
2. Purpose of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 2
3. Evaluation Design, Methodology, and Sites Visited........................................................................... 2
Findings .....................................................................................................................................3
1. Makame WMA.......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Kolo Hills................................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Burunge WMA.......................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Manyara Ranch and Communities......................................................................................................... 9
5. Karatu Hills .............................................................................................................................................11
6. Enduimet WMA.....................................................................................................................................12
7. Mini-Survey Findings.............................................................................................................................14
8. Anti-Poaching, Gender, and HIV/AIDS...........................................................................................15
9. Economic Impact...................................................................................................................................16
10. Overall Project Accomplishment and “Reach”...............................................................................17
11. Landscape Snapshot.............................................................................................................................17
Grant Management and Reporting..........................................................................................18
1. Financial Management...........................................................................................................................18
2. Project Monitoring, Oversight, and Reporting..................................................................................19
Conclusions..............................................................................................................................20
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................24
1. Continue Current Program Elements, Re-introduce Original Elements, and add New Ones..24
1.1. Conceptualize “Next-stage” Activities........................................................................................24
1.2. Consider Incorporating new and Reintroduced Program Elements...................................27
1.3. Other Recommendations............................................................................................................29
2. Expand Project Actors..........................................................................................................................29
3. Balance Managerial and Technical Interventions Directed to Sustainability ................................30
4. Advocate for Decentralized WD Revenue Collection .....................................................................30
5. Continue Support and Programming in Complex Landscape Conservation ...............................31
Annexes....................................................................................................................................32
Annex A: Statement of Work ....................................................................................................................33
Annex B: Project Logical Framework ......................................................................................................38
Annex C: Evaluation Question Matrix.....................................................................................................39
Annex D: Year 5 Goal Accomplishments...............................................................................................42
Annex E: Data Collection Tools...............................................................................................................47
Annex F: Data Collection Schedule..........................................................................................................93
Annex G: List of Interviews and Focus Groups Conducted ...............................................................94
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project viii
Annex H: Document Review Matrix........................................................................................................97
Annex I: Project Pictures............................................................................................................................99
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 1
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT FORMULATION
This evaluation provides a detailed assessment of the Scaling up Conservation and Livelihood Efforts in
Northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ) project implemented by the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), with major
funding from the United States Agency for International Development in Tanzania (USAID/T). The project
was designed as a four-year effort to scale up the AWF predecessor project into a wider Tarangire-Manyara- Kilimanjaro-Natron ecosystem (TMKNE) that extends to the Kilimanjaro Landscape, including Lake Natron
and Ngorongoro. The project targeted a contiguous land area of over 55,000 km2 and an estimated population
of 240,000 people living in predominantly pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities. A fifth-year cost
extension brought total life-of-project (LOP) financing to $9.2 million. The project ends on November 30,
2014; this is the final evaluation of the project (see Annex A for the Scope of Work). SCALE’s goal was to deliver transformational conservation and economic impacts in the wider TMKNE. Project
design was based on a well-developed consensus in Natural Resource Management literature that an effective
means to conserve important biodiversity is at the landscape scale, and that economic growth based on
well-managed natural resources must be integrated into conservation strategies to create long-term benefits for
natural resource users. With other changes in year 2, the project added climate change – attempting to mitigate
causes of climatic change and encourage practices to help communities adapt – and strengthened an integrated
HIV/AIDS prevention component to deliver an educational campaign to increase target communities’ knowledge and awareness of HIV/AIDS. The original project formulation is shown below and attached as
Annex B. Table One: SCALE Strategic Objective Formulation
Overall Objective: To deliver transformational conservation and economic impacts in the wider Tarangire- Manyara-Kilimanjaro-Natron ecosystem through innovation, the replication of lessons learned, and a strong
emphasis on building the capacity of local actors.
IR 1. Create incentives for improved natural resource management and conservation through the provision of
social benefits, notably HIV/AIDS education and prevention.
IR 2. Deliver direct livelihood benefits and incentives for improved land management through the development
and strengthening of the livestock value chain, (deleted in year 2 in favor of climate change mitigation and
adaptation).
IR 3. Promote the sustainable management of natural resources and strengthen local decision making as to how
resources are used to increase economic opportunities.
3.1 Conserve targeted land units, held in public, private and communal domains, to ensure their sustainable
management for both conservation benefits and as assets for economic growth and development for local people.
3.2 Increase and apply scientific understanding of ecosystem function, quality and linkages to conservation
action and management decision-making.
3.3 Create incentives for conservation and livelihoods benefits through the development of eco-tourism and other
conservation enterprise activities.
3.4 Support local institutions and partners to strengthen their capacity, efficiency and ability to fulfill their
missions and contribute to conservation and development schemes.
3.5 Advocate for and contribute to supportive policy frameworks in Tanzania and the region.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 2
2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of this evaluation is to help inform USAID, implementing partners and stakeholders of key
project achievements and outcomes, the effectiveness of its integrated design in achieving intended results, the
sustainability of the approaches used, and potential for scaling up. These findings and recommendations will
hopefully contribute to the design of USAID Tanzania’s natural resource management program. Key
evaluation questions (Annex C) addressed relevance and scale of project targets, effectiveness of the project
approach, strengths and weaknesses, gender success, program monitoring and oversight, constraints and
opportunities, recommendations and lessons learned, success in scaling up, and progress toward sustainability.
3. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND SITES VISITED
A mixed-method, non-experimental evaluation design was carried out using key informant interviews (KII),
focus group discussions (FGD), mini-surveys, and direct observation (DO). The evaluation team (ET)
was composed of a team leader specialized in international agricultural development, a conservation biologist,
a human and wildlife ecologist, an evaluation specialist, and two enumerators. A stratified random sample of
16 villages was selected by the team leader based on geographic criteria, complemented by four additional sites
proposed by AWF. All proposed sites – 19 villages plus Manyara Ranch – were visited, comprising twenty￾three percent of the project universe. Twenty-one KIIs were held at national, regional, and village
levels. (Annex G.) The ET traveled over 2,600 km in 12 days, holding forty-five FGDs using 12 different FGD guidelines. Most lasted 60 to 90 minutes and were limited to eight
participants. Conversations were taped and notes taken in
Swahili, then summarized in English en route from one
community to the next, and reported out in a final English
report. One hundred forty-nine mini-surveys on ten topics were carried out on randomly and purposively
selected interviewees. DO was occasionally used to corroborate village-reported results. In total, 465 people
participated: 47% were male, 53% were female, as shown by the table above. Table Two: Focus Group Discussion Topics by Geographic Area
FGD Topic Makame Kolo
Hills
Burunge Ranch
Staff
Ranch
Comm.
Karatu Enduimet TOTAL
WMA (2) 3 4 5 12
Anti-Poaching (2) 3 1 4
Manyara Ranch 1 1 2
Livestock 2 2
REDD-Nursery 3 2 5
Women’s Ec. Dev. 1 2 3
Micro-credit 1 1
Gender 1 3 3 2 2 11
HIV/AIDs 1 2 3
Cash for Work 1 1
TOTAL 5 9 11 1 5 2 11 44
Plus one FGD for AWF technical staff in Arusha = 45 FGDs total
Due to the qualitative nature of the study design, evaluation results may not support strong causal inference
beyond study sites. FGD questions were formative ones geared toward understanding how well the project
was delivered; the results obtained and findings presented here may relate only to sites visited. The report will
make special mention when observations are offered beyond those specific sites.
Participants Men Women Total
FGD 133 183 316
Mini-Survey 86 63 149
Total 219 224 465
47% 53%
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 3
FINDINGS1
Six sets of findings will be presented by ecological niche, based on focus group discussions (FGD) and direct
observation (DO) carried out during the field travel; presentation of selected mini-survey results; summary
comments on anti-poaching, gender and HIV/AIDs; assessment of economic impact; and selected high-level
accomplishments. 1. MAKAME WMA
The Makame WMA was gazetted2
in 2012 although its history goes back many years. It is composed of five
largely Maasai pastoralist communities in the far-distant district of Kiteto. These communities occupy a very
difficult geographical niche: savannah scrub land with very little water, little or no agricultural potential, a
hundred or more kilometers from the nearest town (and 350 km from the AWF office), and no wireless
network coverage. All communication between villages and with the outside world occurs by word of mouth.
Geographic coverage of the WMA is an astonishing 5,370 km2
the distance between villages’ ranges from 20 to
60 km. Several women WMA leaders told the ET that attending the four WMA meetings each year requires a
two-day walk, sleeping overnight in the bush or with a family member along the way. Forming the Makame WMA has taken ten years. Even before the Village Land Act (1999), Makame leaders
had initiated a land use planning process but substantial fear that such an activity would invite Government of
Tanzania (GoT) takeover of their land prevented its completion. The initiative lay dormant for five years,
during which, the Land Act and subsequent Wildlife Management Area Regulations (2002) were promulgated.
Makame informants told the ET that AWF outreach revitalized the idea of forming a WMA, and that AWF
had been highly supportive over the years. The WMA is now a recognized legal entity with approved land use
rights.
Participants in five FGDs reported that communities clearly perceived the benefits of WMA formation. Most
important, was resolving a conflict with land-encroaching neighbors and their eviction from WMA land. That
land has reverted to its previous state, and villagers reported a discernable increase in the number of wildlife
and in pasture. They also reported that tree logging has significantly decreased, that all community members
now recognize the importance of protecting game (in order to attract hunting licenses), that they no longer
engage in hunting for meat, that community attitudes on killing lions (a Maasai rite of passage) have changed,
and that poaching “has been reduced, though not yet eliminated.” Other positive activities reported are
AWF’s support for building the WMA office, exchange visits with the Burunge WMA and Tarangire National
Park staff, and the collaboration and support of Tanzania National Park (TANAPA) staff. Thirty VGSs, half
now registered, are supported by AWF and other donors and, according to FGD participants, are clearly
appreciated in the community. Women hold thirty percent of WMA positions, and village leaders figure
prominently on the WMA Board of Directors.
Other factors also contribute to success. Almost everyone in the five villages is from the same tribe, which
means there is inherently strong social cohesion, and the time it took to overcome initial community resistance
has produced high community buy-in. The Deputy Chairman is an area native with above-average education
and a certificate in accounting, and the Chairman is articulate and visionary. During the evaluation, he was the
1 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. 2 Official legalization of the WMA under Tanzanian law, including full user rights to the land.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 4
only person to express the concept that he owes regular reporting to the
community and that every three to five years, WMA management should
report accomplishments compared to plans. Village leaders and members
express high enthusiasm for the WMA (see text box). Regarding WMA income, the ET’s initial assessment was “… little
possibility of significant revenue generation” in this resource-deprived area.
During a post-visit validation meeting, the Wildlife Division updated that
assessment by noting that Makame had just signed a hunting contract that
will bring the association its first revenues. This is good news which will
give the WMA an injection of capital in its early days. The ET’s initial
assessment of the longer-term implication remains the same, nevertheless: generating substantial tourism-driven revenue in this area will be very
challenging.
Overall, this group shows enthusiasm and dedication. The District Executive Officer 100 km away called
them “highly committed,” but it is a fledgling WMA. It has elements of strong leadership and community
buy-in that could result in its prospering if revenue streams can be firmed up – but it could die from revenue
starvation just as easily. Because of geography, operational costs to run this WMA will be extremely high. 2. KOLO HILLS
The three communities visited – of 18 villages in this area funded by AWF/USAID and other donors – are
characterized by widely variable agro-ecological niches. Project outcomes are quite different, as a result.
In Kolo, results among different interviewees varied greatly. One women’s nursery group FGD was carried
out as well as a gender FGD, and a discussion was held with various participants on reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Some participants reported themselves as “generally
successful, with plant survivability of 70-80 percent,” while another part of the group reported “lots of
challenges.” Direct observation showed a four-species, 2,500-plant nursery reporting 72 percent mortality
(although the woman grower seemed satisfied with her production), and a second, 250-plant nursery with 100
percent mortality. The problem with nursery establishment in the area is that it is difficult access to water. In
addition to nursery seeds, polyethylene bags, and some fertilizer – but not watering cans that could have made
a big difference in this water-scarce community – FGD participants reported receiving a wide variety of
project experiments: a block-making machine, a fish pond experiment, demo plots, and others.
Both FGD groups reported they used the money they earned from project activities to defray school fees and
improve their economic and social status in the village. AWF also promoted more fuel-efficient stoves in this
village; the ET formed the impression from FGD participants that perhaps the stoves were more successful
than the nurseries. Direct observation and mini-surveys suggested this community does not perceive many
long-term project results. The women’s FGD reported they are “highly participatory and more powerful than men.” They reported
learning the importance of conservation, though the conservation area is a long way from the village; and they
learned how to measure the size of the forest and count tree species. The women reported that tree cutting is
lower than before, and tree planting is up. Two years ago, the community won a community environment
award. In sum, good things have likely taken place in tree conservation and, possibly, watershed protection,
but interviewees give little sense of project coherence or project impact in Kolo.
One interviewee summed up a
significant change of attitude
brought about by the formation
of the WMA, saying: “Our
wildlife is a community asset
just as our livestock is,” a
remarkable statement coming
from an elder Maasai pastoralist.
Another said, “The land use
planning process has allowed us
Maasai to settle down.”
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 5
In Mnenia, the situation is dramatically different. A thirty-person women’s tree nursery group reported itself
highly successful in this water-abundant community. As in other villages, AWF promoted improved plant
spacing, line planting, organic fertilizer, improved seed selection, and other agronomic techniques that
reportedly increased agricultural yields from three to 10 bags per acre (crop not mentioned, probably maize).
The women reported agroforestry activities, soil conservation, and terraces. They manage a fifteen-species
nursery producing 10,000 plants (with an aspirational capacity of 50,000), 8,000 of which were sold. The
group has won 10 environmental certificates, as well as a Tsh. 4.7 million environmental competition award.
They also engage in successful beekeeping. Led by a vibrant woman leader, the group said that women’s
economic contribution is widely accepted in the community. Six of 12 community officials are women, and
three are VGS; one ex-group member was elected to political office.
Another 30-person economic activity group is similarly successful, engaged in improved stove promotion,
block-press, tailoring, charcoal-from-waste products, and other activities. The group reported revenue of Tsh. 1.5 million this year, divided equally among members. They established a loan window from their profits to
benefit group members, then expanded it to non-group women. Their bank account balance is reportedly Tsh.
1.3 million. Anyone interested in joining the group must pay in a quota of half a million shillings – the
members’ estimate of the value of their operation.
Both groups reported no illegal forestry, and increased rainfall and water flow due to forest protection this
year. They said, “For us, life has improved a lot.” In summary, Mnenia demonstrates two “poster child”
successes.
Kikore is located on low-lying land on the Tarangire plain, the only irrigated land seen during evaluation travel, with a one-kilometer, cement-lined canal that irrigated up to 250 acres in 2012. AWF reported twelve year 1
demo farmers (8 men/four women) who reported production gains from 4 to 15-20 bags of maize per acre
with improved pure line and hybrid seed. Production fell substantially for twelve year 2 demo farmers due to
drought. Twelve year 3 demo farmers reportedly experienced improved levels, with most farmers planting
pure line varieties. Project reporting suggested that approximately one hundred farmers learned (and
promoted) the benefits of improved seed, as well as organic and inorganic fertilizer, contour farming and
terrace use, mulching and line planting, and other agronomic techniques. Village interviewees also reported
effective collaboration between AWF and the Ministry of Agriculture. FGD participants reported improved environmental activities: better land use and improved tree planting
skills resulting in increased water flow. They also noted forest protection activities: fewer illegal activities due
to improved enforcement; the forest recovering, which results in fewer floods and landslides; some efforts in
terrace building; some tree planting; and, some soil conservation. They identified a core protected area that is
untouched and sporadically patrolled; timber in non-core areas is carefully harvested. The ET also interviewed
a village forest scout who, reported that unusually, he is paid based on the
fines he collects. The FGD discussion, however, suggested relatively weak
village leadership and a somewhat passive community waiting for more
NGO help, in spite of the fact this was the most prosperous community
visited on the entire trip, and the one with the most agricultural potential.
Villagers attributed improved gender-equality directly to AWF
interventions. All village leadership positions now alternate between men
and women. Twenty-three (of 30) village bank members are women, as is
the chairperson. Women reported themselves involved in vegetable
cultivation, REDD+ activities, “zero grazing,” (land set aside for pasture
One woman leader said
poignantly: “With our own
money, we now pay for our
adolescent daughters’ needs,
and there have been no
adolescent pregnancies since
we started.” Another added, “More girls are going to
school, and they are doing
better than the boys.”
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 6
regeneration), poultry and goat raising, and some soil conservation and tree planting. Women reported, “What
we earn is our money” (See text box for other comments). Women who previously did not raise goats are now
raising them, and goat raisers are now raising cattle. In their minds, these gains are attributable to AWF
interventions.
In a nuanced judgment, the ET finds that the project has not yet been successful in strongly linking improved
agricultural production with improved conservation in Kikore. Despite village comments on forest
improvement above, the ET came away with a sense that the village is largely driven by gains in agricultural
production – the environmental group, for instance, reports it “is not getting its fair share of village resources” – with a yet under-developed appreciation that the water that drives improved production is a result of
improved conservation further uphill. Beyond that, the photograph in Annex I demonstrates the profound
conservation/ development paradox of irrigation water producing economic benefit by taking water out of the
ecologically irreplaceable Tarangire River.
Overall, for the Kolo Hills area: Mnenia participants report dramatic success in conservation, economic
development, and women’s empowerment. Kikore interviewees report economic gain and significant
improvement in gender, but (at most) only early gains in changing the village conservation mindset. In Kolo, women’s comments notwithstanding, it is hard to discern any widespread project effect in either conservation
or economic development, though improved gender equity is well attested to. 3. BURUNGE WMA
On the basis of its long WMA history and frequent visits from dignitaries, the ET expected to find Burunge to
be one of the most advanced WMAs. The visit, instead, identified a crisis that could signal the self-destruction
of the group. Four villages were visited and one other is referred to: in total, half of the ten Burunge WMA
villages.
In Vilima Vitatu, a conflicted focus group discussion took place with open dissent about whether the WMA
has brought benefits to the village or is full of corruption and stealing community resources. The meeting
host, the Village Chairman, repeatedly and aggressively disparaged the WMA contribution to village
development – in spite of the fact that a village school and a handsome village clinic 50 meters away were built
with WMA financing and village children are employed in several tourist lodges. He demeaned the role of
women in WMA management, in spite of the fact that women were vigorously voicing their opinion during
the meeting. He denigrated the importance of the VGS as two uniformed scouts sat in front of him. He
alleged the community was better off when it received revenue from tourist camp investors directly, and said
he wanted to withdraw from the WMA. 3
Several in the group – and several others in parallel mini-survey interviews – echoed these feelings, saying that
since Vilima Vitatu has contributed more land to the WMA, it should receive more revenue (a complaint heard
from other groups throughout the project area). Meanwhile, another part of the group, including the Village
Executive Officer, defended WMA accomplishments, recognizing its obvious contribution to village
improvement and expressing satisfaction at participating in the WMA.
3 The evaluation team is fully aware this negativism could represent deliberate sabotage, since female leadership is
frequently less susceptible to corruption than male leadership, and could easily disguise attemps to return to one-on-one,
authoritarian-led relationships with rich investors. One woman WMA leader interviewed separately said this systematic
denigration of her and other women’s contributions did not begin until revenues dropped in half.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 7
The chairman’s complaints were, alas, dramatically reinforced by his blaming a precipitous fall in WMA
revenue – down by half – on the Wildlife Division’s (WD) new rule that tourism revenues be remitted to a
central authority. This theme was repeated throughout the project area. The community also complained
about not being reimbursed for elephant damage, called consolation4 under Tanzania law, because district
officials want to “punish our WMA.” The theme of slow or non-existent WD consolation was echoed in
numerous other communities throughout the project area. One district Natural Resources Officer said that
none had been paid in his district in three years.
There were widespread allegations of corruption throughout these
discussions, some directed at WMA leaders, others at village leaders,
district authorities, and the police.
A gender-segregated FGD group of six was dominated by one
vociferous woman claiming that the WMA prohibition against firewood
harvesting had deprived her of her livelihood. The other five participants
contradicted her, saying they were allowed to collect fallen wood, just
not allowed to cut living plants. There was additional discussion that
women were not allowed to participate in one Cash for Work (CfW)
project, but were allowed to participate in another.5 They also
mentioned that six of 30 VGSs are women. This group commented that
pasture improvement would be of considerable importance to the
village, and noted that a number of women are in various WMA
leadership positions, including the vice-chair. In the Ngoley FGD, the chairman made similar comments: he reported
widespread belief of corruption in the whole system; strong feelings of
(central) WMA officers overstaying their mandate; and repetition of the
sentiment that the general community does not want to continue in the
WMA, saying, “If the Government doesn’t stop collecting our money,
we want our land back.” The rest of the focus group was more
favorably disposed. Village game scouts from this village participated in a separate FGD, reporting various weaknesses:  One uniform in 10 years of service, bought second-hand;  Beatings by pastoralists (who, some thought, were incited to it by
district officials);  Lack of equipment and lack of transportation;
4 GoT policy pays “consolation” for wildlife destruction rather than “compensation,” which might imply 100 percent
restitution. 5 Cash for Work was a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) activity supported by USAID, sometimes supervised directly by
WWF, sometimes supervised by a designate such as AWF. In Vilima Vitatu, one irate CfW worker reported he is owed
Tsh 400,000 for work completed, which he says he reported numerous times to district authorities and AWF with no
resolution. Note the highly likely confusion in villagers’ minds between AWF, the SCALE project implementer, and
WWF, the CfW project financier/implementer.
Other complaints heard in this
difficult session included:  GoT was interfering with
WMA functioning, and
district authorities were
micro-managing and
inserting themselves in
WMA business.  The Land Use Plan (LUP,
written in English 12 years
ago) was not created using a
participatory process, and
their needs were not
adequately addressed.  “Because investors on our
land bring in the most
money, we should get most
of the proceeds….”  An offer was made to revise
the LUP but the community
refused due to lack of trust
in the leadership, saying,
“They will cheat us again.”  Current village and WMA
leaders have been in their
positions overly long; it is
time for change.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 8
 Lack of credentials, resulting in the freeing of VGS-arrested poachers. VGS said that when they arrest a
poacher and bring him to the police station – even with evidence in hand – the police first ask for
credentials proving the scout’s authority to make an arrest. Ngoley scouts do not have such
documentation (even in far-distant Makame, high-quality VGS identification is used). The ET believes
this is likely deliberate collusion among certain sectors to make VGS arrests all but impossible.
The scouts were, nevertheless, proud of their work, because it brings tourist revenue to their community.
They reported seeing increased numbers of animals, especially wildebeest, and said poaching is down
dramatically, in spite of the obstacles noted above.
HIV/AIDS FGD participants noted that seminars and training events were “piggybacked” onto other project
events and resulted in improved awareness. This basic orientation and training were judged effective, but
second-level training sessions on condom use and specific sexual behaviors were described as culturally
insensitive and counterproductive for a mixed group. Second-level training, according to the comment, should
be packaged for age and gender-segregated groups. One participant noted that, “At least people can talk about
it now.”
Visits were made to two other villages of the Burunge WMA, Magara and Mwada. In contrast to the
previous two, these village groups reported themselves to be generally happy with the WMA – though even
here, there was an oblique comment of a need to “elect representatives who articulate community interests,”
implying that current leadership does not. They have seen many economic benefits from participating in the
WMA: VGS and other employment; more potential revenue streams; significant village investment from
external sources, including living quarters for teachers, and school desks; a dispensary and a new borehole; a
halt in tree cutting on land set aside for conservation. They repeated the assertion that WMA leaders in
Burunge have been in office too long, though they are satisfied with their village WMA leadership. Several
allegations were made during this FGD that senior government officials were invading WMA conservation
land, a comment that received numerous echoes: 1) A mini-survey interviewee said “important people” (i.e., district officials) are behind the encroachment; 2) A comment the previous day suggested that perhaps the
pastoralist encroachment on WMA land was being promoted by senior district officials to sabotage the WMA
in order to insert themselves into the revenue flows; 3) A similar comment was made by a Dar as Salaam key
informant who said “political interference and weak support” was characteristic of this District Council. The
word “corruption,” however, did not come up in these two villages.
FGD participants commented on the negative impact of WD’s centralized revenue collection, saying that
transparency had deteriorated. They indicated that they no longer knew how much money was collected or
shared, and that WMA revenue posters were not updated. One participant said, “If the WD doesn’t get out of
revenue collection, the WMA will fail in two years.”
A gender FGD was held, and participants admitted – under prodding – that gender-equality has improved
substantially. They are proud that the TANAPA Deputy Secretary is a woman from a nearby village, and they
reported that women are listened to more in village meetings. HIV/AIDs mini-surveys noted that seminars
and training events were held in conjunction with other project events, resulting in reduced stigma, lower fear
of transmission, and improved awareness. An FGD was held among six trained VGSs, which included two
women. Complaints highlighted low wages, lack of equipment, self-purchased, second-hand uniforms, and no
credentials or weapons. Though they are paid regularly (Tsh. 150,000/mo. [US$95]), because they spend so
much time in scout quarters, they are not able to plant their farms, and ultimately lose money. When they
patrol with TANAPA officers, who are armed and in vehicles, arrests are more frequent. They reported
poaching has decreased.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 9
Minjingu, another Burunge village, was excluded from the random sample due to project reports of high
hostility toward the WMA, and the team’s conscious decision to not insert outsiders into well-known volatility. Project reporting clearly shows that Minjingu has the same level of hostility toward the WMA as Vilima Vitatu
and Ngoley.
Overall, with Magara and Mwada input, it is clear the status of the WMA is not as bleak as the Vilima
Vitatu/Ngoley/Minjingu situation would suggest. There is, nevertheless, a crisis of leadership in the Burunge
WMA due, at least in part, to significant local political interference. The situation has been greatly exacerbated
by the WD decision to centralize resource collection. AWF reported that WMA elections will be held in
October, and it behooves the project to take a proactive role in promoting free, fair, and “enlightened”
elections if Burunge is to survive this crisis.
4. MANYARA RANCH AND COMMUNITIES
Manyara Ranch occupies a strategic 45,000 acre corridor midway between Manyara National Park and
Tarangire National Park. It was one of Tanzania’s nationalized ranches for many years, then was turned over
to the Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) which managed it unsuccessfully for twelve years. After
years of sitting on the TLCT Board and attempting to provide largely managerial advice, AWF signed a five- year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with TLCT and took over direct management of the ranch a year
ago. AWF’s purpose in assuming this hands-on relationship is meant to create a profit-making operation to
sustain “corridor” conditions for Tarangire/Manyara transiting animals into the indefinite future without need
for long-term external funding. There are a number of obstacles. The current cattle population numbers 853; project staff estimated the
financial break-even point is approximately 2,000 head and six years away. Even under improved AWF
management, the ranch is suffering double the normal cattle mortality rate (4 percent) compared to other
Tanzania ranches. Ranch operations face higher costs of preventive medicine because wildebeest are vectors
of cattle-infecting disease. Paying the salaries of anti-poaching game scouts is a further burden on the bottom
line. Grazing wild and domestic animals on the same land puts extra pressure on the grassland and requires
complex management of the environment.
Seriously complicating these already formidable obstacles are social difficulties. To the east of the ranch lie
three disgruntled pastoralist communities that are not currently served by the project. Unlike two
communities to the west of the ranch described below, these three apparently sold their land rights to large
landowners years ago and now regret their choice, seeing nearby land improving while theirs does not. These
groups regularly invade ranch land to graze their cattle, going beyond the 2 km “shared area” the ranch has
already allowed them to use, violating with impunity the please-do-not-cross dividing line that is nothing more
than a plowed firebreak. Careful planning and management of the pasture is, consequently, being negated
every dry season (harsher dry seasons mean more encroachment), destroying optimal land-use and vegetation- use planning. The ET proposed interviewing several of these groups to better understand their perspective, but was advised not to because of recent violence that made national television. Senior personnel identified land incursion as the single biggest challenge facing the ranch, and admitted they
have yet been unable to conceptualize or develop a meaningful response.
Finally, ranch operations have been saddled with a highly questionable legacy project, a four hundred thousand
dollar abattoir structure-and-equipment built seven years ago that has never functioned and shows no promise
of ever functioning, in spite of constant AWF effort to make a go of it. Quarterly reports detail one setback
after another. The most recent, identified by one of the ET and not yet reported by AWF, is another
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 10
frustrated “last hope” – a long process of identifying a sufficiently
experienced entity to assume management of the abattoir, only to find
it has a Kenyan license rather than a Tanzanian one.
There are various reports of significant improvement in ranch
vegetation and wildlife population since AWF assumed direct
management. Even the team’s brief visit demonstrated numerous
wildlife and improved pasture as one moved deeper into the ranch.
Ranch operations are technically complex, and reaching near to mid￾term financial sustainability is flatly unachievable. Though AWF likely
has a different opinion, based on this analysis, the ET suggests it could
easily take 10 years for the ranch to become economically viable. Its
essential conservation function as a corridor for Tarangire/Manyara
wildlife, however, is indisputable. Two villages to the west and southwest of Manyara Ranch, Oltukai
and Esilalei ceded part of their usufruct right to ranch land some
years ago. Both villages recognized substantial benefit from Manyara
Ranch on many fronts, and participants identified a long list of
benefits during FGDs (see text box). Complaints made during the FGDs indicated that recent management
decisions (AWF hired a new ranch manager a year ago) have been
taken without informing the community, as was previous practice, and
noted a deterioration in the information-sharing climate (the ET
believes that complaints reflect more dissatisfaction with how
decisions were communicated than their soundness). Participants in
both FGDs recommended reestablishing a steering committee where
villagers can again be more involved. In a women’s FGD, comments on bead and jewelry-making were that
project support was good, at first, but sales have stalled for lack of
markets. One person reported she was trained by AWF in 2005, but
received no other visits in nine years, a claim vigorously refuted by
AWF. AWF further clarified that it has been involved with Esilalei for
over 10 years, and has been trying to get the group to become more
self-starting, a comment that resonated with ET’s perception the
group had not done much proactive marketing but rather, is waiting
for markets to come to it. The group reported a benefit of several
women who received an AWF donation of cows that are still
producing; another group received an improved-race bull that has
been used to inseminate local cows. This latter group recently sold the
bull for Tsh. 1 million (US$625), dividing the proceeds.
Women reported that their improved incomes pay for school fees, uniforms, and clothing for their children
and clothes for men. Some even have bank accounts. They also reported that their status and participation in
village decision-making has greatly improved in five years: in this Maasai village, they now occupy numerous
positions of village leadership and are highly respected by the men for making good decisions.
Villagers from Oltukai and Esilalei
identified a number of benefits:  Employment (several villagers
are employees in the ranch
office).  VGS hiring (several are
employed as ranch scouts).  Construction of village
dispensary and village office.  Cattle improvement (the ranch
provides subsidized cattle
vaccination services).  Improved-race bulls and sheep
sold to the communities.  Cattle watering tankers provided
by the ranch during the peak of
the dry season.  A new primary school built by
the ranch for village children (at
the edge of the ranch, rather
than the previous structure that
was in the middle of it).  Ranch-provided medical
evacuations for health
emergencies.  Women’s training on economic
development, particularly cattle
raising.  Creation of women’s economic
groups, particularly bead- working.  Seasonal celebrations and
participation in decision making.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 11
Overall, these two communities are pleased with their decision to cede land to the ranch. They said further
help in pasture improvement and borehole/dam construction would be beneficial.
5. KARATU HILLS
Mazingira Bora Karatu (MBK) is a small local NGO (LNGO) working with AWF in Karatu District since the
early Nineties. An MOU for SCALE activities was signed in 2009 for $17,500 per year, financing MBK
promotion of soil conservation and tree planting in five Karatu communities. The MBK final project report
shows 13,000 plants grown at the close of project: ten thousand were sold to private customers, and 3,000 to
hotels and businesses. Direct observation of the nursery at the small MBK office showed that plants were well
taken care of.
A focus group discussion was held in Gyekrum Arusha, where
soil conservation structures, terraces, and water check structures
were built four years ago. Today’s vibrant vegetation and healthy
crops (including nitrogen-fixing pigeon pea and Napier grass)
made it difficult to discern the need for soil conservation back
then – reported by the farmers as a washed-out gulley. The ET
visited several of the five contour lines, reported by the group
from 230-400 meters in length. The slope of the land was not
severe. The total area reportedly covered is 40 percent of 100
acres. MBK reported it provided free tree seedlings to groups that
built contour terraces, a clever project innovation. This group
reported it received thousands of tree seedlings over the life of the project, mostly wood species, but also some
fruit, exotic, and native species. They observed an increase in precipitation over five years due to the tree
planting. The group started with nine members; they have 21 today, with more interested.
Focus group interviewees reported their maize yields increased from three to 10 bags/acre because of moisture
retention due to the contours and terraces, and soil fertilization by the pigeon pea crop. They also reported
beekeeping: several had one or two hives, one had four. The group did not seem to take as much interest in
beekeeping as soil conservation: a few hives in two or three years is not high replication, and they extract
honey inefficiently, crushing the combs to harvest the honey instead of using centrifuge extraction. In Ayalabe, MBK works with a 20-member group, eleven of whom are women. It promotes agroforestry,
livestock raising, zero grazing, contour planting, tree planting, grafting, and other nursery activities. The group
also noted the promotion of improved stoves, as well as beekeeping that they report produces meaningful
income. This group uses centrifuge extraction for honey with improved (self-purchased) equipment. FGD
participants reported that the survival rate of tree seedlings was 50-75 percent, with losses due to water stress.
As in G. Arusha, direct observation showed low-lying land with a very gentle slope, but villagers insisted the
area used to suffer severe soil erosion during the rainy season. The group faces a significant problem in
elephant destruction: it lies just outside Ngorongoro Crater on the elephant route to Manyara. Farmers suffer
substantial elephant damage every year, but the Government of Tanzania never provides consolation payment. Overall for MBK: This is an exceedingly modest operation with little overhead: $17,500 per year reaching
approximately 100 farmers, achieving visible success in soil conservation and tree planting. If the slopes of
village land are not the most vulnerable, one must recognize assertions that land that used to suffer severe
erosion is now producing substantial economic output. A future project could help MBK move into more
challenging slopes and strengthen its demonstration and scale-up efforts.
One G. Arusha interviewee summed
up MBK, saying, “The project has
changed our way of life.” An Ayalabe
participant said, “Three years ago, I
never would have believed that such
degraded land could make enough
money to pay for my children’s
school expenses and other household
needs.” Another said, “The future of
Lake Manyara depends on us.”
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 12
6. ENDUIMET WMA
Enduimet is one of the more established WMAs. The ET visited five of nine WMA villages to the west and
northwest of Mt. Kilimanjaro, several on the Kenya border. They have received both AWF promotion and
Honey Guide Foundation anti-poaching technical support for several years.
In Ol Molog, FG participants reported that they are largely uninformed of WMA activities, that they receive
little feedback from village leaders, and that they “just get a check” and don’t know how the money was
calculated. Though they first said they were “unaware” of WMA revenue distribution, they reported the
WMA supports school fees for village children, special support for girls’ school fees, a school dispensary, road
construction (unfinished), a tourist lodge (unfinished), building a hospital and the school, and women’s grant
financing. WMA support also relieves them of paying district-imposed quotas that other villages have to pay.
When pushed, they grudgingly admitted that all of this was a project benefit but they insisted, it wasn’t “their”
benefit. Benefits they did clearly perceive were salary support to the VGSs, significantly reduced poaching, and
women’s WMA Board membership. They also noted increased vegetation in conservation areas and some
rehabilitation of degraded land. They expressed major dissatisfaction with the LUP, because it resulted in the
loss of a source of firewood (a comment heard elsewhere in this area). There were vigorous complaints about
wildlife revenue no longer coming directly to the community.
Tingatinga results were completely different. These FGD
participants reported themselves highly satisfied with village
leadership. They noted high transparency, including openly posted
revenue charts, villagers knowing the total funds collected and
disbursed, the community deciding what to finance, and regular
information meetings. They noted that the WMA finances 16
children in secondary school (10 are girls) and two university students. They also cited the construction of a
borehole and a health center (where children’s drugs are always available), successful livestock fattening
activities, improved vegetative growth, and more frequent wildlife sightings. They noted that neither tree
cutting nor poaching takes place in the conservation area, attributable to the VGS, whom they completely
support. They attributed a village reduction in respiratory disease to less dust (in a highly dusty area) as a result
of a WMA-sponsored tree planting campaign. Women’s participation in village decision-making has improved
dramatically, and women now occupy half a dozen leadership positions. Throughout the conversation, FGD
respondents expressed high appreciation of AWF for its support in conservation and elephant deterrence.
Elephant poaching has not been reported in several years, and there is a general community perception that
the number of wildlife has increased. On a less upbeat note, one vigorous complaint was that the Wildlife
Division has not paid any consolation funds in over three years. Sinya is located in an ecological niche as difficult as Makame’s, surrounded on three sides by a desert with
feet-deep dust, and an hour-long vehicle ride just to get to the highway. This area has no agricultural capacity
and, thus, supports only pastoralism and wildlife tourism. The FG said it feels “cheated” by the WMA
because “all WMA tourism revenue comes from us,” a factually incorrect assertion that AWF reports is, nevertheless, a long-voiced Sinya complaint. They asserted the WMA has not found an alternative to women’s
firewood collection, an activity prohibited by WMA regulations five years ago. They are eager to replace their
authoritarian local WMA chairman because he does not share information and refuses to chair meetings to
avoid doing so. FG participants reported the village is largely uninformed of WMA events. Identified benefits
Said another, “Increased wildlife
has brought additional fatalities to
our village, and a child’s death two
weeks ago brought less official
concern than an elephant’s death.”
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 13
included the presence of VGSs, road improvements,6
salary payments to teachers and the water pump
operator, and funding for the school dispensary. They also reported strong anti-poaching efforts: no elephant
deaths have been reported in two years. Somewhat paradoxically, they reported fewer wildlife-human
conflicts, but an increase in cattle death due to more predator attacks. This community was happy with newly
installed barrier gates, which allows better tracking of tourist visits. In gender equality, AWF efforts improved
women’s status in the village: one woman is a village WMA board member (this, in a very isolated Maasai
community); others are WMA sub-committee members. Women are proud of their contributions. Elerai FG participants, like several others in Enduimet villages, reported they are not well informed of WMA
activities. This group said they are frustrated by the fact that VGSs dutifully assess elephant-caused damage,
but consolation payments never materialize. They noted with asperity that when the WMA was originally
formed, a promise was made that “WMA rules would be reviewed every three years.” Six years later, there has
been no revisit of the founding by-laws. They reported that nighttime poachers now come from far away
(rather than nearby) and are not yet fully controlled, but that overall poaching has definitely declined. The
group reported a number of successful women’s economic activities, particularly in raising cattle and growing
maize, beans, and wheat. AWF provided Tsh. 500,000 (US$ 300) of start-up capital for a village bank. In a women’s FGD, participation was not as robust as in other Maasai areas: participants were uncomfortable
expressing opinions. One woman reported she is the owner of her own cow, though her husband takes care
of it and she would need his permission to sell it. But it is hers. In this village, HIV/AIDS training was
offered by AWF (and others), and esoto, a highly erotic nighttime dating event in the Maasai culture, has
declined as a result. The training also prompted midwives to use gloves for birthing events, and the
community no longer shares body-piercing implements, for instance during circumcision. Kamwanga WMA leadership and many community members were involved in a three-hour long water
meeting when the ET arrived: we were ultimately unable to meet these villagers. With assistance from our
AWF guide, an ad hoc FGD of knowledgeable village participants not involved in the water meeting was
assembled (including several ex-members of the WMA) that uncovered feelings of not being informed of
WMA developments and being “marginalized.”
FGD participants recognized the WMA contribution in constructing a village school, and the payment of
school fees and support for one university student. They made similar comments as in other villages about
VGS-assessments of elephant damage that never result in consolation payments. They noted that women
were assuming various leadership positions in the WMA, and expressed keen appreciation for the WMA and
for AWF. They noted, however, more incursions from “Kenyan elephants,” a puzzling comment until the
ET’s Kenyan wildlife expert explained that Kenyan population pressure on Tsavo National Park hundreds of
km to the north meant the comment is likely accurate. A worrisome aspect is that if these elephants are
“Kenyan,” perhaps Tanzanian villagers perceive less of an obligation to be concerned for their welfare.
Near the conclusion of the FGD, hints of financial irregularities arose. It occurred to the ET that we were
being deliberately excluded from talking to the original group – even though we could have done so without
disrupting the water meeting. This was in sharp contrast to the openness in 18 other villages, whose leaders
allowed us to engage freely with the community. The ET believes the long water meeting was likely a pretext
6 Cash for Work (not an AWF-led project activity per se) received high FG endorsement. Two roads were improved
(though not completed) and payments to 50 men and 20 women were regular and timely. Enrollment was open, so
anyone who wanted to participate could. Income helped pay school fees, buy food, and purchase livestock.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 14
to keep us from exploring leadership and transparency issues Kamwanga. At the end of the FGD, participants
recommended that an audit of this village WMA should take place soon; the ET concurs completely.
A three-person VGS FGD was held nearby. The VGSs were smartly dressed, and the ET commented they
were articulate in their responses to facilitator questions. They said they have received significant support
from the Honey Guide Foundation, including two vehicles and numerous training events, and feel the need
for continued support. They said they receive good cooperation from the police and believe the biggest flaw
in anti-poaching enforcement is not the police but the judiciary (this is the opposite of Burunge, where VGSs
blame the police with damning specificity). They receive strong support from the village, including informant
tips, making them more effective in their jobs. They reported that poaching is significantly down; they are
proud of their work and believe it helps their village benefit from tourism dollars.
Overall, significant reduction in poaching is reported in all Enduimet villages (and by numerous key
informants), as is high satisfaction with VGS accomplishments, in part supported by AWF, in part supported
by separate Honey Guide Foundation financing. Substantial revenue distribution was also widely reported
(even when the community chooses not to recognize it fully), which is being used to pay school fees, build
community clinics, schools and boreholes, and engage in numerous other community development activities.
There was vigorous objection in all villages to the WD revenue centralization decision.
Contradictory reporting was in evidence. In several villages, there was clear dissatisfaction with local leaders
holding positions overly long, and association leaders characterized by low participation and autocratic
behavior. This may be indicative of inter-Maasai group rivalry. In the validation meeting, AWF clarified that
Enduimet WMA elections took place in May 2014.
Central Enduimet WMA leadership seems strong, but there is significant variation in village WMA leadership,
with Tingatinga setting an example as one of the finest the ET has seen, Ol Molog, Elerai and Sinya having
communications issues (some serious), and Kamwanga requiring an immediate management response. An
overall lesson seems to be that village WMA leadership is as important as central WMA leadership – a finding
perhaps overlooked until now – and must be strengthened, in some cases quite quickly, before a Burunge-like
situation evolves. How to do so with WMA elections having just been held poses a significant challenge.
7. MINI-SURVEY FINDINGS
Total mini-survey respondents were 149, reporting on each interviewee’s involvement in (or awareness of) ten
categories of activities: WMA (management or community), anti-poaching, women’s economic activities,
micro-credit, HIV/AIDs, gender, REDD+, livestock, and Cash for Work. All but a few surveys were
administered to non-focus group interviewees, thus expanding the interview base of the evaluation.
In WMA areas, 81 of 84 respondents (96 percent) were aware of a functioning WMA. WMA organizational
activities reported by 77 respondents included: arresting poachers and regular anti-poaching patrols, 79
percent; election of village scouts, 70 percent; land use planning, 62 percent; preparation of by-laws, 47
percent; election of CBO leaders, 40 percent; distribution of revenue and regular meeting of CBOs, 36
percent; signing agreement with investors, registration with the GoT and user rights awarded by the GoT, 26,
22 and 21 percent, respectively. This is compelling evidence that natural resource conservation activities are
ongoing and well known in WMA areas.
In WMA and non-WMA areas, 83 percent of 119 respondents reported that women participated in SCALE- TZ activities including income generation, anti-poaching, WMA management, nursery management, cash
generating activities, and HIV/AIDS campaigns.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 15
Table Three: Mini-survey Summary (Total response categories in 149 surveys)
Village + “N” WMA Anti-P Women
Ec. Act.
Micro- Credit
HIV/
AIDS
Gender REDD Live- stock
TOTAL
Irkiushi- 6 5 6 3 2 4 2 22
Ndedo- 7 5 5 5 1 5 21
Kolo- 24 n/a n/a 7 3 20 22 52
Mnenia- 10 n/a n/a 9 8 3 9 9 38
Kikore- 10 5 3 9 1 10 13 41
Ngoley- 10 10 10 9 8 7 3 47
VilimaVitatu- 6 6 6 5 3 3 5 28
Magara- 12 11 12 10 4 7 9 53
Oltukai- 6 n/a n/a 5 4 3 5 6 23
Karatu- 4 n/a n/a 4 4 2 10
Tingatinga- 15 12 9 5 1 9 2 38
Sinya- 13 13 12 8 4 2 6 4 49
Esilalei- 15 12 11 11 8 12 1 55
Kamwanga- 4 4 4 4 2 2 16
Total- 149 83 78 90 49 25 103 48 17 493
An important cross-project findings shows that 77 percent of 99 families reported improvement in the number
of meals taken; 75 percent reported improved dietary diversity; 39 percent experienced improvements in
production and consumption of new food; 48 percent cited higher expenditures on education and health; 40
percent benefitted from improved food security compared to two years ago; and 60 percent reported more
conservation activities taking place in the village. 8. ANTI-POACHING, GENDER, AND HIV/AIDS
Anti-poaching. Given the importance of anti-poaching to the overall project, it seems worthwhile to re- summarize VGS conversations and communities’ perceptions of VGSs. FGDs were held with five area VGSs – Burunge, Kamwanga, Kikore, Magara, and Ngoley. Irkiushi, Makame, and Ndedo WMA leaders also made
extensive contributions. Responses were quite similar – VGSs are proud of their work and feel they are
contributing to the well-being of their communities. They universally reported that poaching has gone down
because of their efforts (as do various key informants). They generally felt warmly supported by the
community (except Vilima Vitatu), and the community clearly saw them as a benefit.
There were a number of similar complaints. Most had to pay for their own uniforms, which were bought
second-hand from National Park staff. All invariably cited that they are under-equipped: confronting
sometimes well-armed poachers without weapons; largely without vehicles; mostly without tracking
equipment; mostly without tents; almost always without radio communication. Most reported receiving a fairly
regular salary, but the Magara group articulated that the salary they earn is less than if they had stayed on the
farm. They uniformly reported they are most effective when they travel with National Park VGSs, who are
armed and travel in vehicles. Six of 127 VGSs are women in this physically demanding role. Some have received scout training, while others have not. The Enduimet group reported considerable
satisfaction with Honey Guide support and a desire for more training (under a recently signed MOU, Honey
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 16
Guide has expanded activities to other WMAs). Those whose quarters were built by external donors were
pleased with them, though one group reported it has no furniture, bedding or kitchen equipment. Almost all
said they are incapable of self-sustaining operations without external donor support. Most VGSs found flaws with the current anti-poaching system. The ET notes serious concerns with
apprehension protocols (and efficiency) in Burunge – even suspecting collusion. Burunge VGSs said they are
undervalued by the district police and one was severely beaten, while in Enduimet, VGS valued their
collaboration with police, but felt the judiciary is not supporting them. Overall, though there have been many
positive developments in anti-poaching, there is still much room for improvement.
Gender Equality. There is ample evidence of significant improvement in gender equality as a result of the
project. Women occupy WMA leadership roles in Burunge, Esilalei, Magara, and Makame. Women’s
participation and “increased voice” in village decisions was widely reported in Esilalei, Kikore, Magara
Makame, Mnenia, and Tingatinga. Women were seen by the men (and by themselves) as participating more
actively in village life almost everywhere. They are direct implementers of many project activities, and in some
villages, women are achieving dramatic economic success (Esilalei, Kikore and Mnenia). Above all, many of
these successes are taking place in Maasai communities where cultural traditions make achieving gender equity
especially difficult. One could even speculate that a dramatic cultural change is taking place in Maasai society: in numerous AWF communities Maasai women are being allowed and encouraged to engage in cattle raising
and cattle care – unheard of in traditional Maasai pastoralism. FGD respondents reported a substantial number of girls’ school fees being paid by various WMAs. This
keeps girls in school, a significant, now well-understood human development accomplishment. Indeed, in one
village women attributed gains in adolescent sexual health directly to AWF interventions. Overall, the project
has significantly impacted gender equity.
HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDs component of the project was enhanced in year 2, and there is evidence of
substantial project activity since then. Respondents in several FGDs described the effort as Stage One: a
successful campaign to sensitize the population to the issue of HIV/AIDS, reduce stigma, and teach people
how to minimize risk. FGD and in mini-survey feedback indicates that this sensitization was effective. A few
respondents even mentioned spouses going for testing together. The AWF methodology sub-contracted
HIV/AIDS-specialized NGOs for this promotion and piggyback talks onto other program-specific content.
According to several respondents, Stage Two talks on specific sexual behaviors were not as well received. The
general feeling was that more explicit content should be delivered to age and gender-segregated groups, not to
mixed populations. Nevertheless, even in the Maasai community where cultural mores may be more difficult
to change, substantial behavior change has been reported: three communities reported they no longer engage
in esoto. Overall, the communities reported a very good start to reducing stigma and responding to the
epidemic. 9. ECONOMIC IMPACT
While a focus group methodology has limitations in adducing ‘hard’ economic impact data, strong economic
outcomes are evident from the findings in Mnenia and Kikore (but not Kolo), in Esilalei and Oltukai, in G.
Arusha and Ayalabe, and in most Burunge and Enduimet communities. Indeed, in the two WMAs, it is
precisely the competition for control of economic gains that is motivating community in-fighting. In most
WMA villages, economic benefit has taken the form of investment in human development – support of
children’s school fees and even some university tuition – and community development activities in health post
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 17
and school construction, water holes, community reforestation, and others. As noted above, mini-survey data
indicate economic and food security improvements on a project-wide basis.
10. OVERALL PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENT AND “REACH”
A review of the FY11, FY12 and FY13 annual reports (FY14 not yet available) shows the following
accomplishments of selected high-level performance indicators.
Table Four: Selected High Level Accomplishments FY11 to FY13
Performance Indicator FY11 FY12 FY13 Total
No. people with increased economic benefits derived from
sustainable natural resources management and conservation
2,976 3,660 3,987 10,623
Percent accomplished/ target 99% 111% 121% avg. 110%
Hectares of biological significance and/or natural resources
showing improved natural resource management
179,019 333,352 78,612 590,983
Percent accomplished/ target 179% 222% 8% avg. 136%
Number of laws, policies, strategies, etc. addressing climate
change and/or biodiversity proposed, adopted, implemented
34 57 46 137
Percent accomplished/ target 103% 116% 85% avg. 101%
Number of people receiving USG supported training in natural
resources management/or Biodiversity conservation
451 343 666 1,460
Percent accomplished/ target 376% 69% 133% avg. 193%
Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate
change
56 76 132
Percent accomplished/ target 100% 136% avg. 118%
Number of stakeholders with increased capacity to adapt to the
impacts of climate variability and change.
840 1,435 2,275
Percent accomplished/ target 28% 57% avg. 43%
Total USD revenue generated from conservation enterprises.
Baseline $237,100
367,000 28,500 224,266 619,766
Percent accomplished/ target 141% 11% 70% avg. 74%
USD value of total annual conservation business revenue that
trickles to communities. Baseline $118,550
183,500 6,500 0 190,000
Percent accomplished/ target 141% 11% 0% avg. 51%
Number of new conservation enterprises started and sustaining
profit at least $5000/yr. Baseline 2
3 6 0 9
Percent accomplished/ target 200% 200% 0 avg. 133%
Project goals, targets and “reach” appear to be reasonable as seen from the table above.
11. LANDSCAPE SNAPSHOT
The following may be a useful concluding snapshot of findings across the different project landscapes. Table Five: Snapshot of Project Accomplishments by Ecological Niche
Success in: Makame Kolo Hills Burunge Manyara
Ranch
Manyara
Comm.
Karatu Enduimet
Conservation Yes Yes Mixed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Econ. Benefit Not yet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Anti-poaching Yes Little Mixed Yes Yes Yes
Gender Yes Yes Yes No Yes In one Yes
HIV/AIDs Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 18
GRANT MANAGEMENT AND
REPORTING
This section briefly addresses Evaluation Question # 5: How effective are program monitoring systems and
oversight, reporting, and documentation?
1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Though it was never intended that this evaluation examine detailed project expenditures, some observations
arise from careful review of the amended budget AWF submitted to USAID on September 17, 2013.
AWF justification for the budget amendment was the
following:  The large increase in travel costs, 67 percent, was
due to increased fuel prices and heavier-than- anticipated travel in the landscapes. In the eyes of
the ET, this is understandable, given the work in
Makame, Yaeda Chini, and Lake Natron.  The significant decrease in supply costs, 61 percent, related to the Manyara abattoir that did not come
online.  The 100+ percent increase in the contractual line
item was due to significant costs associated with
promoting Lake Natron, from which fact a
conclusion will be drawn in the next chapter.  The 35 percent increase in other direct costs
resulted from inflation and additional expenses related to the promotion of Randilen and Makame WMAs.  According to AWF, the big decrease in sub-grant funding was attributable to underspending on the West
Kilimanjaro Ranch (because the GoT offer to sell the property was withdrawn,) and to delayed VGS
training in Yaeda Chini.
It will also be noted that indirect costs increased by 25 percent because of a newly negotiated AWF Indirect
Cost Recovery. This translated to a $340,000 cut of on-the-ground expenses in the last one or two years of
project life. Given that other cost increases are unavoidable day-to-day expenses (gas, per diem, travel), it is
not surprising the biggest budget cut was in the sub-grant line item, sixty-three percent. It is regrettable that
should be the case. Several key informants articulated that AWF did not live up to partner NGO expectations
of sub-grant financing talked about in the early days of the project. This finding will lead to a recommendation
regarding a strengthened sub-grant mechanism in a follow-on activity.
Regarding eventual total grant expenditures, given AWF’s track record as an experienced USAID grantee, the
ET has no doubt that AWF will expend to the full limit of the grant.
Table Six: AWF Budget Modification Request
Line Item Original
Budget
Modified
Request
Percent
Change
+/- Personnel 1,791,835 1,6788,023 -6
Fringe 842,162 706,613 -16
Travel 530,868 885,910 67
Supplies 896,847 347,450 -61
Contractual 472,200 1,144,020 142
Construction 222,000 199,932 -10
Other Direct 819,474 1,103,846 35
Sub grants 1,320,586 492,580 -63
Total Direct 6,895,972 6,558,374 -5
Indirect 1,324,028 1,661,626 25
Total 8,220,000 8,220,000 0
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 19
2. PROJECT MONITORING, OVERSIGHT, AND REPORTING
In general terms, AWF’s monitoring and oversight has been acceptable. Baseline data were collected in 2010, (and added to in 2011 and 2012) and reported against throughout the project. Reporting gains against
USAID/Tanzania’s Standard Program Indicators has been good until recently. A lively narrative of project
activities and accomplishments took place quarter after quarter. Numerous high-quality surveys of animal
population and migration have been produced throughout the life of the project. The annual reports are well- written and allow judgments about progress (see Table 10, above, for instance). The cost extension proposal –
re-read after the team completed its fieldwork – is comprehensive and recognizes many of the situations the
ET found in its travels. Report organization is a different story. As noted, quarterly reporting takes the reader through the various
activities and accomplishments. It is, unfortunately, confusingly presented. For some reason lost to
institutional memory, AWF chose not to follow the reporting language of the project’s logical framework, but
created a parallel narrative structure that, once in place, was repeated each quarter. Annex C contains a
comparison of the two. It was not likely a major stumbling block for those who followed the project over the
years. For others, it is difficult to understand what is reported, and how a particular activity relates to
accomplishing IRs and goals.
Other examples of hard-to-follow reporting are:  Numerous sub-IR activities disappear from one quarterly report to the next without reference to the
previous document or explanation.  USAID strategic objectives appear in the table with cumbersome numbering, skips in numbering, and with
little explanation.  The 2013 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) were prepared in April 2013. A number were
incomplete then, and none has been updated in 15 months.  The FY2014 third quarter report was due in early July 2014. A copy of the report, still in draft form, was
provided to the Evaluation Team on September 10.  The ET forms the impression that project reporting has slipped in the last year of the project.
Overall, project activities and descriptions are reasonably well presented. Tracking how they fit with IR
accomplishments and internal project logic, however, has proven difficult.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 20
CONCLUSIONS
An overview of project accomplishments can be found in the following chart. Annex D contains a more
comprehensive listing. Table Seven: Summary of Intermediate Result Achievements
Intermediate Results Quarterly Report Indicators Overall Assessment/
Planned vs Actual Results
Create incentives
for improved NRM
and conservation
through the provision
of social benefits,
notably HIV/AIDS
education and
prevention.
Social benefits Incentives created through integrating
HIV/AIDS and NRM
(As per the PMP Indicator table FY11-14): HIV/AIDS
prevention education and awareness campaign and
training reach targeted communities.
Accomplished
Accomplished
Promote the
sustainable
management of
natural resources
and strengthen local
decision-making as
to how resources are
used in order to
increase economic
opportunities.
3.1.1 Participatory landscape level biodiversity
conservation integrating climate change adaptation/
mitigation and local NRM decision making.
(3.1.2 missing)
3.1.3 Support Manyara Ranch
3.1.4 Support Kisimiri corridor
3.1.5 Improved water catchment conservation in
TMKNE via subgrants
3.1.6 Pilot REDD activities in Kolo Hills and
expansion areas
3.1.7 Strengthen management indicators on
sustainability at Lake Manyara National Park
Largely accomplished
Ranch progress; yet some way to go
Reported accomplished
Some progress; some way to go
Accomplished in Kolo Hills, not much
in expansion areas
[No evaluation data on which to base
an opinion.]
3.2 Scientific understanding of ecosystem improved
and applied to conservation
Largely accomplished
3.3 Climate change adaptation and mitigation well
integrated into NRM.
3.3.1 Climate change adaptation well integrated into
target pastoralist systems including Manyara Ranch
Some progress; some way to go
Ranch progress; some way yet to go
in wider areas.
3.4 Conservation Enterprises generate increased
and equitable benefits from NRM
Some accomplishments
3.5 NRM supportive Policies, law and regulations
developed and applied
Some accomplishments
IR 3.6 Human capacity of target institution improved Some accomplishments
Conclusion 1. The project has made progress in strengthening conservation entities.
In Burunge and Enduimet WMAs, organizational maturation has taken place, with revenue sharing plans
developed, disbursements effected, and community development projects implemented. In Makame, AWF
revitalized community interest in LUP, resolved a long-standing dispute with a game reserve, and encouraged
the community to complete WMA gazetting – a process resulting in the group’s first revenue proceeds only in
the last months. Randilen, a WMA not part of the field visit that occupies an important corridor zone adjacent
to Burunge and Manyara Ranch, was formed and gazetted in under a year – a record.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 21
In Kolo Hills and Karatu, the project has shown gains – some small, others significant – in agroforestry, soil
conservation, women’s economic development, improved agriculture production, and early reports of
improved watershed capacity. The evaluation suggests sometimes mixed results, but the larger picture is that
these communities are located toward the top of the watershed where any improvement will have long-term
impact on downstream habitat, including national parks. Though there was no opportunity to explore the
demonstration effect of such activities, a future landscape intervention should build on such results.
At Manyara Ranch, the project has achieved an important milestone in AWF’s stepping into a management
role, taking over from TLCT. Given the essential “corridor function” Manyara Ranch performs, it fits
completely within AWF’s Mission of “Preserving African wildlife forever.” AWF’s assumption of this new
role has helped the ranch recover from its previous decline; ranch grassland and wildlife are clearly on the
upswing. Anti-poaching activities have almost universally been reported as succeeding, and incidents of animal fatalities
are widely thought by communities and the VGSs to be decreasing. As a result, a number of communities
report wildlife population is increasing, especially in Enduimet and Manyara, even a bit in Makame – but less
frequently in Burunge. The document demonstrates widespread gains in gender equity, widespread improvement in HIV/AIDS
sensitization, at least in the Stage One phase, and substantial economic gains in some women’s groups. Many
women working on project activities report they now defray school fees from their own (rather than their
husbands’) resources, buy school uniforms, and otherwise improve household diets with the money they earn. Some women have taken a giant step into full entrepreneurship.
It should be noted, though not part of this ET’s field travel, that significant project resources have been
invested in the promotion of WMA formation in other ecologically important areas: Yaeda Chini, Lake
Natron, and Lolkisale/Makuyuni.
Conclusion 2. The project continues to face “work-in-progress” difficulties in many of these areas, and sustainability of project gains is still years away. This evaluation assesses that the Burunge WMA is in trouble. Numerous strong, dissenting village opinions
(and likely hidden agendas) on how much economic benefit the WMA has provided member villages threaten
the very existence of the WMA. In Enduimet, field travel identified a worrying lack of transparent leadership
in several villages, with recent elections perhaps even entrenching flawed leadership for years to come. In
Makame, in spite of this document’s favorable assessment of WMA leadership, there seem few revenue
possibilities; and if, as this evaluation posits, there is no reliable economic payoff, the future of that WMA
seems fragile. The evaluation team was cautioned in its first few days about forming a too-early opinion on the rapid pace of
the WMA formation in Randilen. Weighing carefully the comments of those who view the event favorably
against those who do not, we concluded that it was done too quickly. Seeing what the lack of full community
buy-in has done to other WMAs, we do not believe the necessary community input could have been achieved
in Randilen in such a short time. Now that the WMA is legally gazetted, the ET believes it is necessary to
dedicate substantial energy developing village conviction on its desirability. The ET has serious concerns with the concept of WMA formation in Lake Natron, territorially almost as big
as the vastly large Makame WMA, with six times the number of villages to win over. We admire the enthusiasm
of AWF staff motivated by the ecological importance of Lake Natron, but believe that leadership,
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 22
transparency, community buy-in, and revenue generation will be unimaginably difficult in this area. Even now, the project reports considerable extra expenses in work carried out to date. It will only get worse.
It is difficult to reach an overall conclusion about Kolo Hills, because the stratified random sample included
only three (of 18) communities. Mnenia’s successes could be the exception or the norm. Kikore’s agricultural
production/conservation paradox could reflect a widespread issue – or not. Is the lack of discernable results
in Kolo the norm or the exception? Overall, one forms the idea that project experience will likely follow the
bell curve observed in Enduimet communities, with one or two substantial successes similar to Mnenia, one or
two lackluster accomplishments similar to Kolo, and the rest somewhere along the continuum. While
speculative, this assessment likely approximates the full picture. MBK’s Karatu results demonstrate clear
project accomplishments; but this is only in five communities and only involves 100 or so people.
As discussed at length, at Manyara Ranch, the threat of serious encroachment will increase worse as climate
change worsens. Suggestions will be offered in the next chapter. One must also ask how long an international
NGO will be willing to manage Manyara Ranch if, as evaluator opinion suggests, the break-even point is a
decade away. While anti-poaching success is widely reported in WMAs, the ET has doubts. In every probing conversation,
once one got past generalities, anti-poaching results seemed less clear. In Burunge, pastoralists beat one VGS
senseless when he tried to get them to leave the land they were encroaching on. Burunge VGSs lack
credentials (we think a deliberate omission), and the police ask, “Why are you being so tough on these people,”
as they throw the charge out before the case is filed. Even in Enduimet, where VGSs receive considerable
support from Honey Guide and articulate a well-developed sense of mission, they complain that the criminal
justice system routinely lets poachers off. The ET can only reach a mixed verdict on overall anti-poaching
results. This report has noted the overwhelmingly negative impact of the Wildlife’s Division centralization of fee
collection as well as widespread absence of GoT consolation reimbursements. The ET suggests that the
revenue centralization decision, if not modified, threatens the very existence of WMAs in Tanzania. Beyond
these two issues, the Findings chapter clearly suggests that sustainability of project gains will require addressing
identified weaknesses for years yet to come.
Mention is made, in passing, of three major project initiatives included in the original proposal in which the
project invested considerable time and energy that were overtaken by events. One is the inability of the
project to land the management contract for the West Kilimanjaro Ranch. A second is the project’s inability
to convince military authorities in Brigade 303 to undertake conservation activities in this large, ecologically
important area east of Manyara Ranch. Third, is the issue of the Kwakuchinja corridor, an acutely sensitive
plot of land that connects Manyara Ranch with Tarangire National Park. Because quarterly reports provide
extensive documentation showing these results are not for lack of effort – project staff have worked tirelessly
toward these objectives for years – it is important to emphasize that in complex landscapes, events take their
own course and a project can only do what events allow. Still, these represent shortfalls in some of the
project’s important conservation targets. The point is to recognize that as much as the project has succeeded
in many areas, there is still much to be done, and decades before Tanzanian wildlife can be considered
adequately protected.
In conclusion, landscape conservation through improved economic development is a sound concept, but
brings the problem of effectively managing a significantly complex set of activities. A recommendation will
grow out of this conclusion to spread the project’s management responsibilities. Moreover, there can be
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 23
highly nuanced tradeoffs between goals and strategies, as in the case of Kikore irrigation water not getting into
the Tarangire River, increased wildlife-caused human fatalities in Tingatinga, more elephant destruction in
Ayalabe and Vilima Vitatu, and increased predator raids in Sinya. There are no easy answers to such
conundrums.
AWF project management has been reasonably effective, but several indicators suggest that a consortium- based or performance-based contract structure may be more manageable in a follow-on activity. A
recommendation will be offered. Examples of conservation linked to economic development are many: VGS employment, cattle fattening,
genetically improved bull breeding, beekeeping, goat raising, vegetable growing, and other successful women’s
economic activities. Strong linkage between conservation and economic development, however, seems yet
undeveloped in most villagers’ minds. Further development of tourism investor firms that contribute
substantially to project success is another essential component of conservation-linked economic development.
The final conclusion is a conceptual understanding that came to the ET over time. As we analyzed what was
going well in Tingatinga and badly in Burunge, we identified a pattern suggesting four pillars which make or
break a successful WMA – and, perhaps, any successful conservation effort – represented by the drawing
below. It is not overly complex, but perhaps represents a new way of thinking about WMA evolution that
could be useful in designing future landscape activities. Indeed, this concept influenced the ET when
formulating these conclusions and the recommendations that follow. In summary, a strong WMA seems to be
characterized by effective, enlightened leadership like that found in Tingatinga and Makame. It has transparent
operations – again seen in those two communities. It enjoys widespread community participation in land use
planning, substantially absent in Vilima Vitatu and Sinya, and buy-in to the WMA concept, years in the making
in Tingatinga and Makame but not in Randilen. Finally, direct economic benefit was seen in some
communities but noted frequently by its absence in others due to the WD decision to centralize revenue
collection.
Community BUY-IN Revenue BENEFIT Effective LEADERSHIP Management TRANSPARENCY
Successful Conservation
Mature WMA Organization
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 24
RECOMMENDATIONS
Frequent evaluator practice in a recommendations section is to offer a limited number of suggestions in order
to propose a manageable list. Responding to the SOW, this evaluation offers a number of recommendations
as a menu of program concepts which USAID can explore more thoroughly as it formulates the next landscape
activity. Five high-level recommendations are as follows: 1. Follow-on landscape activities should continue with current program elements, add back program elements
that were part of the original project design including water and livestock improvement, and add new ones. Table Seven: Recommended Follow-on Activities
Next Stage Activities New and Reintroduced Concepts
Continued work with WMA strengthening, training, and
formation
Continued work in agro-forestry and soil conservation
Continued outreach to Manyara communities
Continued work on “other ranch” possibilities
Reactivate Brigade 303 efforts
Reactivate attention to specific wildlife corridors
Rethink WMA in Lake Natron (and perhaps others)
Strengthen village banking
Continue TMKNE roundtable
Create legal training for better VGS arrest procedures
Establish a national poaching hotline
Reintroduce pasture improvement activities beyond
Manyara
Reintroduce livestock improvement beyond Manyara
Reintroduce a water component (dams and boreholes)
Strengthen national long-term planning in wildlife
conservation
Begin work on other landscape modalities
Strengthen TMKNE Advocacy role
2. Follow-on landscape activities should expand project actors through strengthened sub-grant or fee-for- service mechanisms.
3. Follow-on activities should balance managerial and technical interventions.
4. USAID should actively advocate with the GoT until WD’s centralized revenue collection is modified in
favor of some immediate, sustainable, local revenue collection.
5. USAID should continue its important support to landscape conservation, with multi-sector, multi- ecological niche programming required by the landscape’s complexity.
1. CONTINUE CURRENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS, RE-INTRODUCE
ORIGINAL ELEMENTS, AND ADD NEW ONES
This document recommends continuing all activities that are working well in the current project, re￾introducing conceptually sound activities that were dropped in year 2 for lack of funds, and incorporating
several new project concepts. 1.1.CONCEPTUALIZE “NEXT-STAGE”ACTIVITIES
Work with WMAs should continue unabated. Older WMAs should emphasize transparency,
leadership and management; newer WMAs should focus on revenue generation, revenue distribution
and consolidation.
AWF’s project experience and these evaluation results have shown a wide range of needs among WMAs:
older associations like Burunge and Enduimet – in addition to the considerable training they have received in
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 25
the current project – require additional training in leadership, transparency, improved accounting, stronger
community buy-in, and revenue sharing. These are the next stages in organizational maturation, similar to
organizational development issues throughout the world. The bulleted items in recommendation number 3
below list the scope for such training: the aim should be to strengthen these WMAs toward full organizational
independence. It will take some years.
Other issues relate more immediately to newer WMAs like Makame and Randilen. These entities also should
receive training in transparency, leadership and the rest, but their first concerns should be related to revenue
generation (Makame), revenue stream sharing (Randilen), and overall WMA consolidation (both). Next, if a
decision is taken to continue the push toward WMA status for un-gazetted hopefuls like Yaeda Chini and Lake
Natron (on which the ET has numerous reservations: see below), there is a different kind of training needed
for these groups, similar to what AWF has carried out in older WMAs during this project. Third, improved
training for village governments in conservation and transparent resource management should be planned for
all WMAs.
In summary, a follow-on landscape activity should continue to work with all WMAs, addressing the specific
needs of each association. It will need to be a significant program component. Continue agro-forestry and soil conservation in important conservation watersheds. Continued effort
must be expended to address important conservation goals in the Tarangire and Manyara watersheds. While
progress was being made in the current project, 18 villages in Kolo Hills and five in Karatu represent the tip of
the iceberg of the dozens of communities whose watershed activities and soil run-off have dramatic influence
on the lowlands. If anything, these activities should be (approximately) tripled if serious environmental
protection is to be achieved.
Continue outreach to Manyara Ranch communities. Carefully select activities to support Manyara
Ranch based primarily upon conservation, not profit, criteria. Long-term technical and managerial
improvement in the Manyara (cattle) Ranch cannot be overlooked. The current project has many sound ideas;
those activities should be supported. Given the success and excellent relations the project has achieved with
the two communities to the west of the ranch, it seems clear these activities should continue. The project
must also somehow respond to the needs of the three communities to the east of the ranch if long-term
pasture sustainability is to be achieved. This will require additional budget resources, additional staff, and
“proactive outreach” to communities that may not be favorably disposed to such overtures. Nevertheless, if
one begins to think in a ten-year horizon as this report suggests, it seems clear these three eastern side
communities must be brought in to enjoy limited project benefits. The focus of such budget support should
not be grant money used to make profit (leaving that to other donors), but rather extension support to
conservation goals.
Continue other ranch alternatives: West Kilimanjaro, and other similar tracts of land. At one point in
the project, AWF had numerous “other ranch” aspirations, including West Kilimanjaro. Factors beyond the
project’s control precluded these activities going forward, but the possibility should be kept open. This
observation and the following three suggest that the next landscape activity should not put all its conservation
“eggs” in the WMA basket. Other landscape alternatives should be pursued, additional ranch conservation
being one.
Re-activate Brigade 303 contacts with military authorities regarding potential conservation. As with
the ranch idea, AWF made numerous overtures throughout the project to encourage the military to respond to
conservation needs in Brigade 303. Despite repeated attempts described in quarterly reports, these efforts did
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 26
not prosper. Several years ago, the Tanzania military was involved in a national effort to encourage
conservation in selected areas. The effort was deemed a failure and discontinued, but it may have awakened in
military leaders a desire to define an appropriate role for the military in conservation. The U.S. Department of
Defense was similarly involved in promoting the idea several years ago. It may be time to reintroduce such
initiatives. Given the vast size of Brigade 303 and its significance as a wildlife corridor on the Simanjaro plain,
it is simply too big and important an area to leave unattended. Direct project attention to specific wildlife corridors such as Kwakuchinja. Corridor activities were
largely unachieved by the current project, but their importance cannot be over-emphasized. There is, for
example, a corridor approximately 10km wide and only a few kilometers long that connects Manyara Ranch to
the northern edge of Tarangire National Park where the animals are unprotected because it is private land. A
smart poacher could sit in this corridor, wait for transiting animals, and kill them at his leisure with little fear of
consequences. Kwakuchinja is one such corridor; Kitumbeine and Kisimiri are two more but there are still
others that project staff are keenly aware of and concerned about. The next landscape activities should begin
to address this issue, perhaps via land acquisition, promoting CCROs (see below), or identifying other
alternatives. Consider other conservation alternatives to the proposed WMA in Lake Natron. This evaluation raises
serious concerns with plans to establish a WMA in Lake Natron. In discussions with project staff, the ET was
impressed by the fervor and commitment AWF staff showed to Lake Natron conservation, for the fragility of
its environment, its delicate ecological balance, and its breeding ground for the lesser flamingo. In the mind of
project staff, Lake Natron is a must-protect area. Nevertheless, everything the ET learned during this study
suggests that Lake Natron as currently conceived will be ungovernable. Project documentation already notes
how expensive Lake Natron promotion has been. Fuel and travel costs, LUP consulting fees, and other costs
are “way beyond budget.” All this in a well-funded project. How much more difficult will the situation be
when a future WMA has to find its own money to cover such expenses? Recall that Lake Natron is almost as
big as Makame, 4,761 km2
, without the benefit of having Makame’s social cohesion, and with six times the
number of Makame villages.
There are other alternatives. One is to create three or four WMAs instead of one. Another is for the
Government of Tanzania to declare the area a national park or wildlife game reserve; yet another is to work
with the communities on a “wildlife easement” area and/or a CCRO. The point is not to give up on the
importance of conservation in Lake Natron; it is to do it in a manner that has a higher chance of success.
There may be other areas that should be thoughtfully re-evaluated and Yaeda Chini comes to mind.
Significantly strengthen project activities in village banking. The evaluation team saw or heard of a
number of village banking schemes that had self-started in various communities visited. AWF was even
beginning to promote village banking in Kikore a few months before the project’s end. As articulated by FGD
participants, the strength of the village bank is that it is independent of external financing, run by members
(incurring minimal operating costs), and highly responsive to members’ needs. One reason to turn it into a
full-fledged sector intervention would be to expand the economic impact of conservation in all project areas, no matter the particular ecological niche. There are NGOs in Tanzania with special expertise in promoting
village banking.
Continue conservation promotion roundtables through TMKNE. Strengthen its advocacy role. Various key informants gave AWF high marks for its convocation ability in the TMKNE semi-annual forum:
several said it was the one place where important activist conservation organizations could share experiences
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 27
and discuss priorities. This important function should continue. The working group also engaged in national
advocacy from time to time, the most significant being a Nov. 20, 2013 policy recommendation to the
Government of Tanzania on the financial sustainability of the WMAs and a requested review of the WD
revenue centralization decision. Several KIIs suggested this function should be strengthened in a subsequent
activity.
1.2. CONSIDER INCORPORATING NEWAND REINTRODUCED PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Create a program IR to provide legal advice and follow-up to WMAs, coupled with enhanced
advocacy. The evaluation suggests that WMAs could benefit from a better understanding of how the
Tanzania legal system works. WMAs, for instance, should have the right to demand timely information from
WD on revenues collected. Also, through the Authorized Association Consortium (AAC), an umbrella group
that works to improve WMA management and advocacy skills, WMAs could be lobbying for a simplified
WMA structure in place of the costly one currently mandated by law. Several key informants noted that
Namibia and Kenya return 100 percent of wildlife revenue to their WMAs; in Tanzania it is only 50 or 60
percent. Surely, there is scope for a coordinated national effort to improve Tanzania wildlife conservation
laws.
Create legal VGS training for better arrest procedures. The evaluation shows that the effectiveness of
village game scouts is severely handicapped by the lack of legal rigor in VGS arrest procedures. In some cases
(Burunge), we infer the lack of training is deliberate; in other places (Enduimet), VGSs claim the judicial
system is not helping them enforce anti-poaching laws. Creating a training program to help VGSs understand
the requirements for improved arrest procedures would result in more effective enforcement. Such consulting
and training services could perhaps fit well in the AAC.
Establish a hotline reporting system for suspected district employee corruption related to anti- poaching. Similar to the effective informant reporting system established by the Honey Guide Foundation for
Manyara Ranch poaching, one key informant reported the Government of Tanzania is promoting a nationwide
corruption hotline (though its effectiveness is questionable to some). The purpose of this recommendation
would be to include poaching as a hotline-reportable offense and to give renewed national publicity to anti- poaching efforts. Establishing a Special Prosecutor for anti-poaching could show an even stronger
government response.
Reintroduce a pasture improvement component beyond Manyara Ranch. As noted, this component was
included in the original SCALE-TZ proposal, and it was evident numerous times during field travel that losing
the intervention in year 2 was unfortunate. The reality is that on hundreds of thousands of acres of WMA
land, agriculture should not be promoted, but improvements to pasture land could have enormous economic
impact. One key informant coined the phrase, “making the Northern landscape a ‘beef belt’.” A successful
pasture improvement activity could help better nourish current cattle herds, reduce the number of livestock
pastoralists feel are needed for economic survivability, and reduce encroachment on WMA land from nearby
villages. One thinks of widely planted improved seed varieties, perhaps drought-resistant varieties, perhaps
even clover. Expert advisors should develop such strategies.
Reintroduce a livestock improvement component beyond Manyara Ranch. The original project
proposal envisaged landscape-wide livestock improvement. Expanding on the current Manyara experience,
this could include improved-variety breeds, better vaccinations, and more widely available veterinary services. There are, for instance, INGOs which have developed successful “barefoot veterinarians” in some countries;
the Government of Tanzania is reportedly exploring this idea. Linking to this government initiative could
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 28
bring widespread benefit to countless thousands of pastoralist and semi-pastoralist families in landscapes far
beyond Manyara Ranch. Expert advisors should build the program design.
Reintroduce a water component, especially boreholes and dams. This is the third component of the
original proposal cut in year 2 due to funding constraints. The evaluation saw, many times over, how
important this component could be in pastoralist communities where water is in short supply, and, paradoxically, in watershed communities where too much seasonal water causes erosion. This evaluation does
not recommend a full-scale water, sanitation, and health (WASH) program because of its additional
complexity, but recommends, instead, a focused intervention to build minimum water infrastructure, including
boreholes and small dams. In Elerai, the ET saw a recently built gravity-fed water system providing daily
water for at least five hundred cattle the morning of our visit. Several project villages (Tingatinga, Vilima
Vitatu, Magara) report the WMA building its own borehole. In areas like Makame and Sinya, to say nothing of
the troubled communities to the east of Manyara Ranch, the addition of a water-building component (perhaps
in a cost-sharing arrangement) could bring enormous benefits to WMA villagers and greatly increase the
landscape activities’ economic impact.
Strengthen national long-term planning in wildlife. The evaluation suggests that more work is needed
around national advocacy efforts and longer-term thinking than the current project has offered. The wildlife
industry represents nearly $2 billion to the Tanzanian economy – the second or third largest source of national
revenue. The evaluation team does not believe it receives the national attention its position merits. One key
informant noted the World Bank’s Big Results Now (BRN) initiative doesn’t even consider wildlife
conservation as a BRN sector. Another KI noted that national planners have no long-term vision of
Tanzanian wildlife in ten or twenty years. It would seem appropriate that the next USAID-supported
landscape activity begin to look further out, and develop a national advocacy/sector planning initiative to
lobby for essential sector goals. One envisages a consortium of important international donors, USAID,
German International Development Cooperation (GIZ), the Norwegian Government, the Dutch Government
and various European donors, aligned with prestigious INGOs, AWF, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), and others working with a parliamentary committee to create a more favorable, sustainable vision for the future of Tanzania wildlife. Begin work in other landscape modalities: wildlife easement agreements, certificates of customary
rights of occupancy, and others. Mention has been made that the current SCALE-TZ project has many of
its “eggs” in the WMA basket, notwithstanding that there are other landscape modalities being experimented
with. This report recommends that other modalities receive substantial project scrutiny, and that project funds
be allocated to scale them up. The NGO Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (UCRT) has ten years’ experience experimenting with wildlife easement agreements, whereby a community commits to not
developing given tracts of land in exchange for minimal compensation (i.e., $5,000). Terrat is a village where
UCRT reports that, since 2004, the community has not touched important pasture land on the Simanjaro plain
where wildebeest, zebra and antelope bear their young during the rainy season. The “rent” to support this
non-use comes from downstream donors who see the advantage of protecting the breeding area of species
they will show tourists a year later. This concept could easily be at the stage where program support could
significantly multiply the number of such easement agreements protecting wildlife and expanding acreage
protected. Another idea promoted by UCRT and mentioned in AWF’sfifth-year cost extension proposal, is an extension
of the easement idea, promoting, then establishing Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy (CCRO)
agreements under already existing Tanzania legislation. This appears to be a “WMA-lite” initiative – the
concept of community LUP and protection without the complexity of the multi-year, 12-step WMA process.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 29
Other conservation modalities are likely being experimented with in the Northern Landscape. The next
USAID-supported activity should begin branching out to support such ideas.
1.3. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
One of two key constraints to Makame’s success as a WMA is lack of communication. It is recommended in
the next landscape activity that a budget of approximately $15,000 be earmarked to subsidize private
construction of a cellular repeater antenna. With a small inducement grant, an entity like Vodacom or Tigo
could become interested in new business development. An antenna would be of inestimable benefit to the
Makame WMA.
For all the reasons that do not bear repeating, it is the ET’s recommendation that the Manyara Ranch abattoir
be written off. Over the five years of this project (and several years before), in spite of constant AWF effort to
make it work, it has proven to be an intractable problem and a serious drain on managerial time. The ET
counsels AWF to let it go; it is not worth more effort. Regarding the three communities to the east of Manyara Ranch, we offer three recommendations which, when
combined, might offer a chance of long-term success.
1. First, ranch authorities could make overtures to these three communities, offering regular subsidized cattle
vaccination services as long as land encroachment does not take place on the Manyara Ranch. An MOU
could be signed whereby a desired village outcome – subsidized vaccinations or another livestock-valued
benefit – is provided as long as the pasture boundary is respected.
2. Second, the project could drill one or two boreholes (free of charge or at a subsidy) away from the ranch
border, so the flow of livestock goes away from the ranch and not toward it.
3. Third, and a more unusual idea, is to hire these villagers on a cash-for-work basis over some period of time
to build a dead-barrier fence along the length of the shared border using fallen branches from nearby trees.
An acacia barrier will not stop an elephant, but it can deter one, and it will surely deter the incursion of
cattle. The recommendation is to run the barrier the entire north-south length of the ranch border. Drawing on the experience of border protection in the southwestern U.S., it is possible to build a
reasonably effective (in this case, natural) barrier that will keep cattle out of ranch pastures better than the
fire-break that is the only boundary today. Using natural materials and local labor means that damage will
be easy to repair. Paying these communities wages is also a way to bring unexpected economic benefits. 2. EXPAND PROJECT ACTORS
Follow-on activity in this landscape should expand project actors through strengthened sub-grant or
fee-for-service mechanisms. Evaluation results suggest there should be more actors involved in a follow-on
activity for two reasons. The first is that landscape conservation is enormously complex, as amply
demonstrated in this document. It seems unrealistic to expect one organization to have in-house expertise to
carry out all the activities required for success. Second, as shown in the financial review, current sub-grant
financing – as small as it has been – has shown uniformly positive results.  Efficacious Honey Guide Foundation work in training and strengthening VGSs has been noted; AWF has
recently signed an MOU with Honey Guide to provide this service at Manyara Ranch.  The small annual financing awarded to MBK produced good results at exceedingly modest cost. How
much broader an impact could the organization achieve if, for instance, its sub-grant was multiplied by a
factor of ten?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 30
 Subcontracts with LNGOs promoting HIV/AIDS awareness have clearly provided value for the money.  The LNGO Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (UCRT) is an industry leader in wildlife easements and
CCRO development. UCRT’s current annual operating budget is approximately $300,000-400,000 in
easement work; a new USAID landscape activity doubling this amount could allow UCRT to expand
significantly into new areas.  Inyuat E Maa (MAA) has received little financing from AWF – only $18,000 for four grants – but does
effective work in climate change adaptation, human-wildlife conservation, and natural resource governance, and is an experienced USG-funded sub-grantee. Would it not be useful to finance a substantial expansion
of MAA activities into non-WMA areas?
It is beyond ET competence to suggest the contracting mechanism for such financing. Some Missions favor
Request for Proposals from a consortium of contractors or INGOs, with each entity specializing in its area of
expertise. Others favor one or two implementers and a strong sub-grant window with substantial budget
allocation. In fact, the original AWF grant allocated 19 percent of operational funds to sub grants ($1.3 of $6.9
million). Unfortunately, the 2013 budget revision reduced that to 7.5 percent ($492 thousand of $6.6 million.)
Whatever the preferred USAID/Tanzania contracting mechanism, this report recommends that a substantial
portion of the next landscape budget be dedicated to sub-grants, perhaps as much as one-third. 3. BALANCE MANAGERIAL AND TECHNICAL INTERVENTIONS
DIRECTED TO SUSTAINABILITY
Follow-on activity in this landscape should balance managerial and technical interventions. The
evaluation has demonstrated a clear need beyond technical training in anti-poaching, revenue generation, and
land use planning. It is being calling management and governance training, and covers a broad array of
organizational development activities. These include:  Improved management training and governance training (and the important distinction between the two);  More accounting capacity building;  Training in data collection, monitoring, and evaluation;  Training in “servant leadership” and general leadership principles;  Capacity building in stewardship at all levels;  Capacity building in conservation, particularly at the village level; and,  Transparency training: principles and practices.
Many of these modules could fit well within the mandate and founding purpose of the Authorized Association
Consortium (AAC). This could perhaps be another LNGO that could be an important landscape partner.
There are surely other Tanzanian organizations with expertise in these areas.
4. ADVOCATE FOR DECENTRALIZED WD REVENUE
COLLECTION
USAID should actively advocate with the Government of Tanzania until WD centralized revenue
collection is modified in favor of some immediate local revenue collection. The WD’s centralized
revenue collection mechanism is killing WMAs in Tanzania. In order to achieve institutional and ecological
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 31
sustainability, USAID and other donors should do everything in their power to have this decision reversed or
modified – immediately – so that direct revenue collection reverts, at least in part, to the WMAs concerned.
Reflecting the comment of one key informant, “The person who incurs the [conservation] costs should share
the benefits.” In the view of the evaluation team, this is a sine qua non if WMAs are to survive. Only when
timely revenues are fully restored to local communities will it be possible to build on successes of Tingatinga
and Makame in using local revenues to strengthen conservation. 5. CONTINUE SUPPORT AND PROGRAMMING IN COMPLEX
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION
USAID should continue its highly-valued support to the landscape conservation sector and “stay the
course” with multi-sector, multi-ecological niche programming required by the landscape’s
complexity. The evaluation team has been unable to identify current program elements that are not essential
to successful wildlife conservation and improved economic benefit at landscape scale. In fact,
recommendation number 1 highlighted numerous additional areas of programming that could likely produce
broad program impact. Since protecting the $1.7 billion Tanzania tourism/wildlife industry – as well as its
watershed and biodiversity resources – is essential to a prosperous economy, one could argue the wildlife
sector is as important to the long-term development of Tanzania as any sector supported by the international
donor community. Preservation of the landscape demands continued support of a complex, multi- dimensioned program.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 32
ANNEXES
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 33
ANNEX A: 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 2013 or 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. This Scope of Work will focus on the evaluation of a critical project supported by the NRM
program; the Scaling up Conservation and Livelihoods Efforts in northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ)
implemented by African Wildlife Foundation (AWF).
USAID Tanzania has contracted Development & Training Services, Inc. to undertake a two task assignment
for conducting an end of program evaluation for AWF project. Findings from this evaluation will be used to
contribute to lessons learned from project approaches and related outcomes, as well as contribute to new
NRM program design. The evaluation shall be undertaken currently to align with the new design phase for the
NRM program. This task will involve specific evaluation questions to be addressed as detailed below in the
SOW.
The AWF project is funded under the NRM Strategic Objective (SO)13, ‘Biodiversity conserved in targeted
landscapes through livelihood driven approaches’, and contributes 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.
TASK: END OF PROJECT EVALUATION OF THE SCALING UP CONSERVATION AND
LIVELIHOODS EFFORTS IN NORTHERN TANZANIA (SCALE-TZ)
SCALE-TZ Project Background
The AWF implemented Scaling up Conservation and Livelihoods Efforts in Northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ)
is a four year project mainly funded by USAID/ Tanzania to scale-up AWF’s program and replicate successes
from the Tarangire Manyara Ecosystem (TME) into a wider Tarangire-Manyara-Kilimanjaro-Natron
ecosystem (TMKNE) that extends to the Kilimanjaro Landscape, including Lake Natron and Ngorogoro. The
project is targeting a contiguous land area of over 55,000 km2. The population of the targeted villages in
TMKNE is an estimated 240,000, predominantly pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities.
The project focuses on biodiversity conservation through livelihood driven approaches. It works to create
incentives for improved natural resource management and conservation though the provision of economic
and social benefits, delivering direct livelihood benefits and incentives for improved land management, and
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 34
promoting sustainable management of natural resources and strengthening decision-making at the local level
concerning how resources are used in order to increase economic opportunities based on those resources. The
project also has a climate change component focused on mitigating causes of climatic change in key target
areas and adopting means and practices that will help communities adapt to climatic change impacts. The
project has an integrated HIV/AIDS prevention component that delivers an educational campaign to increase
target communities knowledge and awareness.
Consistent with AWF’s Heartland approach, the project bases its actions on strategies designed to mitigate
threats and to deliver tangible conservation and livelihood results. The overall aim of the SCALE-TZ project
is to deliver transformational biodiversity conservation and economic impacts in the Tarangire-Manyara- Kilimanjaro-Natron ecosystem through innovation, replication of lessons learned, and a strong emphasis on
building the capacity building of local actors.
The project started on December 1st, 2009 to November 31st, 2013.
The three main Intermediate Results at the onset of the project were to:
1. Create incentives for improved natural resource management and conservation through the provision of
social benefits, notably HIV/AIDS education and prevention;
2. Deliver direct livelihood benefits and incentives for improved land management through the development
and strengthening of the livestock value chain; and
3. Promote the sustainable management of natural resources and strengthen local decision making as to how
resources are used to increase economic opportunities.
In Year 2 of the project, Objective 2 was dropped and climate change mitigation and adaptation results were
added to the project.
In order to achieve these results, the project has five main strategic areas; Participatory landscape level
biodiversity conservation integrating climate change adaptation/mitigation and promoting local natural
resource management (NRM) decision making for development, strengthening conservation enterprises
yielding equitable benefits to communities, capacity building of key stakeholders, promoting NRM supportive
policy development and application, and integrating HIV/AIDS prevention education and awareness.
The project’s objectives are strictly tied to USAID’s Program Areas under SO13, and USAID’s Program
elements including Health, and Environment.
The total funding for the four years was $8.2 million. The table below breaks the funds down by
earmark/funding source:
Description FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total
Direct USAID
Mission
Funding:
PEPFAR 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000
Agriculture 340,000 340,000
Water 300,000 300,000
Biodiversity
Earmark
2,770,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 6,480,000
Climate 300,000 300,000
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 35
Change
Grand Total 3,610,000 500,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 8,220,000
SCALE-TZ PROJECT RATIONALE
Significant threats to biodiversity continue to face the region, such as increasing cultivation, overgrazing,
charcoal burning, population growth, poaching and competition over resources, notable water and pasture, as
well as poverty in rural communities. This situation is further complicated by the effects of climate change.
SCALE TZ was proposed with the intention of scaling up this program and replicating successes from the
Tarangire Manyara Ecosystem (TME) and into a wider Tarangire-Manyara-Kilimanjaro-Natron ecosystem
(TMKNE), thus extending the reach into AWF’s Kilimanjaro Heartland, including Lake Natron and
Ngorogoro. The area comprises a contiguous land area where every acre plays an important role in maintaining
ecosystem health, integrity and viability, and presents a significant economic asset in the form of wildlife
tourism. The project has therefore based its approach on actions and strategies designed to mitigate threats
and to deliver tangible conservation and livelihood results. Taking a landscape scale approach has been used to
link sound natural resource management practices directly with sustainable and secure local livelihoods.
Threats that SCALE TZ is designed to address therefore include increasing land cultivation, overgrazing,
charcoal burning, population growth, poaching, deep poverty in rural communities and competition over
resources – notably water and pasture. Additional challenges which can be addressed from an integrated
landscape scale approach are climate change mitigation and adaptation and the need to use innovative
financing mechanisms, such as payment for ecosystem services.
Prioritized activities for the project include therefore participatory landscape biodiversity conservation, which
integrates climate change adaptation and mitigation, strengthening conservation enterprise development and
equitable benefit sharing, capacity building of key stakeholders in resource management and decision making,
promoting NRM supportive policy development and application and integrating HIV/AIDS prevention
education and awareness.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFTHE EVALUATION
The purpose of this evaluation is to help inform USAID, implementing partners and relevant stakeholders on
a) the overall key achievements and outcomes of the project; b) effectiveness of this project and its integrated
designs in achieving intended results, c) sustainability of the approaches implemented and potential for scaling
up. Findings and recommendations from this evaluation will as well contribute to the Natural Resource
Management Program design.
AWF (SCALE-TZ) EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. How relevant are the project targets and are they at an appropriate scale (e.g. coverage, geographic focus,
target beneficiaries) for achieving intended results?
2. How effective7 has the SCALE project approach been in reaching intended outcomes of the project in the
key programming areas of:
7Effectiveness in terms of whether the project was able to achieve the intended or expected outcome in the
key project areas.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 36
a) Participatory landscape scale conservation (e.g. land use planning and management, mitigating human- wildlife conflicts, anti-poaching),
b) Increased household incomes and equitable benefits from conservation based livelihoods,
c) Increased natural resource management capacity,
d) Policy development, and
e) HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness?
What have been the strengths and/or weaknesses of the project approach and why?
3. Has gender been considered in the design and implementation of the project and to what extent? Have both
men and women benefitted and how?
4. How effective are the program monitoring systems and oversight, reporting and documentation?
5. What are the underlying key constraints/opportunities (internal/external) that have potentially impacted
performance of the program (capacity, staffing, organizational support, political context, etc.)?
6. What are some identified key recommendations and lessons learned which could enhance project
performance?
7. How successful has the project been in starting to scale up approaches; a) What are the opportunities/
challenges for further scaling up?
8. 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 sustainability8 of the SCALE-TZ project (e.g.
Government and private sector engagement, increased capacity for improved resource management and
governance, equitable benefits to communities, policies and bylaws established and enforced, 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 this task, the evaluation shall use existing baseline data. The evaluation will take a comparative pre/post
analysis, taking a sample of villages which have received support from the project, 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.
8 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.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 37
The evaluation shall generate creditable evidence that corresponds to the evaluation questions being asked.
The evaluation will include the following steps:
1. Desk Review of existing program documents: This includes but not limited to:  Project Description Document  Annual work plans  Quarterly performance reports  Performance Monitoring Plan
 Existing project evaluations  Baseline Reports  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 will be required to 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 feedback. 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 team will also be required to 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 need to 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 consultants will meet with, and contacts for people to invite to
meetings and briefings.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 38
ANNEX B: PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Results RFTOP & Cost Extension Proposal
Indicators9 Quarterly Report Indicators10
Intermediate Result 1:
Create incentives for
improved natural resource
management and
conservation through the
provision of social benefits,
notably HIV/AIDS education
and prevention.
1.1: Creating incentives through improved
local delivery of wider non-financial social
benefits concerning HIV/AIDS treatment
and prevention
Social benefits Incentives created through
integrating HIV/AIDS and NRM
[reported in the PMP Indicator table
FY11-14 as: ‘HIV/AIDS prevention
education and awareness campaign and
training reach targeted communities’]
Intermediate Result 2 dropped in YR2
Intermediate Result 3:
Promote the sustainable
management of natural
resources and strengthen
local decision-making as to
how resources are used in
order to increase economic
opportunities.
IR 3.1: Conserve targeted land units held
in public, private or communal domains to
ensure their sustainable management for
both conservation benefits and assets for
economic growth and development for
local people
3.1.1 Participatory landscape level
biodiversity conservation integrating
climate change adaptation/mitigation and
promoting local NRM decision making
practiced.
3.1.1.1 Management of conservation land
units that provide assets and benefits for
community development improved
3.1.1.2 Ecosystem land Unit/zone’s local
NRM plan implemented
IR 3.2: Increase and apply scientific
understanding of ecosystem function,
quality and linkages to conservation and
management decision making
3.1.2 Scientific understanding of
ecosystem improved and applied to
conservation
IR 3.3: Create incentives for conservation
and livelihoods benefits through the
development of eco-tourism and other
conservation enterprise activities
3.1.3 Climate change adaptation and
mitigation well integrated into NRM.
3.1.3.1 Climate change adaptation well
integrated into target pastoralist systems
IR 3.4: Support local institutions and
partners to strengthen their capacity,
efficiency and ability to fulfill their missions
and contribute to conservation and
development schemes
31.4 Conservation Enterprises generate
increased and equitable benefits from
NRM
IR 3.5 Advocate for and contribute to
supportive policy frameworks in Tanzania
and the region
3.1.5 NRM supportive Policies, law and
regulations developed and applied
IR 3.1.6 Human capacity of target
Institution Improved
[does not appear in the October proposal
but included in Quarterly Reports]
9 Sources: Scaling up Conservation and Livelihoods Efforts in northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ) “Progressing
Towards Sustainability in the TMKNE WMAs,” (17 Oct. 2013).
10 SCALE-TZ Progress Reports October-December 2013 and Jan-Mar 2014 and Apr-June 2014.
?
?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 39
ANNEX C: EVALUATION QUESTION MATRIX
Evaluation Questions
Methods for Data Collection Sampling or Selection
Approach
(as needed)
Data Analysis
Data Source(s) Method Methods
1. How relevant are
the project targets
and are they at
appropriate scale
(e.g. coverage,
geographic focus,
target beneficiaries)
for achieving intended
results?
Documentation
(SCALE-TZ project
proposal, PMP,
progress reports,
work plans,
strategies, external
evaluations,
planning and
capacity
documents of
partners, baseline
surveys, and formal
agreements
GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local leaders/
officials, and
beneficiary groups
Desk review
KIIs
Group discussions
Field observations
Village beneficiary
mini-surveys
Group discussions
purposively sampled,
criteria considered: (a)
geography, & (b)
role/official position,
Village beneficiary
survey respondents
selected
opportunistically on the
basis of personal and
HH criteria
KIIs purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Frequency
Distributions
Trend analysis
Content analysis of
documentary
materials
Quantification of
KIIs, surveys, and
group discussions
PMP review
Comparison
analysis
2. How effective* has
the SCALE project
approach been in the
key programming
areas of:
(a) Participatory
landscape scale
conservation (e.g.,
land use planning &
management,
mitigating human- wildlife conflicts, anti- poaching)
(b)Increased
household incomes
and equitable benefits
from conservation
based livelihoods;
(c) Increased natural
resource
management
capacity;
(d) Policy
development
(e) HIV/AIDS
prevention and
awareness?
Documentation
(USAID, project,
GOT and/or
development
partner baseline
surveys; follow-up
survey data;
progress reports;
external
evaluations:
partners and formal
agreements
GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local
leaders/officials,
and beneficiary
groups
Statistical analyses
of secondary data;
Desk review
KIIs
Group discussions
Field observations
Village beneficiary
mini-surveys
Group discussions
purposively sampled,
criteria considered: (a)
geography, & (b)
role/official position,
Village beneficiary
survey respondents
selected
opportunistically on the
basis of personal and
HH criteria
KIIs purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Content analysis of
documentary
materials
Quantification of
KIIs, surveys, and
group discussions
Frequency
Distributions
Trend analysis
Comparison
analysis
3. Has gender been
considered in the
design and
implementation of the
project and to what
extent? Have both
Project design
documents and
reports;
KIIs and group
discussions;
Desk review
KIIs
Group discussions
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Frequency
Distributions,
Trend analysis
Content analysis of
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 40
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)?
Project and GOT
livelihood data,
health and
environmental data
Field observations
documents
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
4. How effective are
the project monitoring
systems and
oversight, reporting
and documentation?
Documentation
(USAID, project, &
GOT; progress
reports; external
evaluations:
GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local
leaders/officials,
and beneficiary
groups
Desk review
KIIs
Field observations
or discussions
regarding of
performance data
recording/reporting
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Statistical analysis
of past data
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
5. What are the
underlying key
constraints or
opportunities
(internal/external) that
have potentially
impacted
performance of the
project (capacity,
staffing,
organizational
support, political
context, etc.)?
Documentation
(USAID, project, &
GOT; progress
reports; external
evaluations:
GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local
leaders/officials,
and beneficiary
groups
KIIs
Group discussions
Field observations
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
Frequency
Distributions,
Trend analysis
Content analysis of
documents
6. What are some
identified key
recommendations and
lessons learned which
could enhance project
performance?
Documentation
(USAID, project, &
GOT; progress
reports; external
evaluations)
GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local
leaders/officials,
and beneficiary
groups
KIIs
Group discussions
Field observations
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
Frequency
Distributions,
Trend analysis
Content analysis of
documents
7. How successful
has the project been
in starting to scale up
approaches;
a) What are the
opportunities/challeng
es for further scaling
Documentation
(USAID, project, &
GOT; progress
reports; external
evaluations)
KIIs
Group discussions
Field observations
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
Frequency
Distributions, Trend
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 41
up? GOT, development
and implementing
partner personnel,
local
leaders/officials,
and beneficiary
groups
Analysis
Content analysis of
documents
8. 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
sustainability of the
SCALE-TZ project
(e.g., Government
and private sector
engagement,
increased capacity for
improved resource
management and
governance, equitable
benefits to
communities, policies
and by laws
established and
enforced, etc.)?
Project design
documents;
Progress reports;
Project and
external
evaluations;
USAID
Implementing and
development
partners
Village level
leaders
Desk review
KIIs
Group discussions
KIIs & discussion
participants purposively
selected: identified by
implementer, USAID,
and evaluation Team
Content analysis of
documents
Qualitative analysis
of KIIs and
discussions
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 42
ANNEX D: YEAR 5 GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
RFTOP &
Cost
Extension
Proposal
Indicators
Indicators Activities plus
Evaluators’ Snapshot Assessment
of Current Status
assisted by updates status from AWF
Intermediate Result 1: Create incentives for improved natural resource management and conservation through the
provision of social benefits, notably HIV/AIDS education and prevention.
1.1: Creating incentives through improved local
delivery of wider non-financial social benefits
concerning HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention
Accomplished
Intermediate Result 2: Dropped in YR2
Intermediate Result 3: Promote the sustainable management of natural resources and strengthen local decision- making as to how resources are used in order to increase economic opportunities.
IR 3.1:
Conserve
targeted land
units held in
public, private
or communal
domains to
ensure their
sustainable
management
for both
conservation
benefits and
assets for
economic
growth and
development
for local
people
3.1.1: Support targeted Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs) in
conserving and governing wildlife
and natural resources
Continue Building capacity for Village Game Scouts (VGSs)
anti-poaching unit, Burunde & Enduimet
Accomplished
Continue building capacity for patrolling and surveillance
and biological monitoring for Makame WMA
Accomplished
Facilitate Makame WMA CBO development managerial
skills
On-going
Continue facilitating Lake Natron WMA establishment (Land
Use Plans) etc.
Submitted for AA status with Wildlife Division
Building capacity for patrolling and surveillance and
biological monitoring for Randilen WMA
On-going
Facilitate Randilen WMA CBO development managerial
skills
On-going
Continue facilitating Yaeda-Chini WMA establishment
Not yet accomplished. On-going
Continue collaboration and synergies with WWF-CBNRM
program and WD on WMA impact monitoring
Accomplished. On-going
3.1.2 (Missing) Continue capacity building to strengthen Manyara ranch
livestock management and value adding activities, including
improved stock, abattoir and marketing initiatives, while
monitoring impact on local livelihoods through community
consultation.
Half accomplished
3.1.3: Support Manyara and
priority strategic land parcels for
NRM and livelihood
Continue facilitating Manyara Ranch operations including
surveillance by Ranch Games Scouts to protect wildlife,
livestock management and tourism enterprises
development.
Accomplished
Conduct ecological/ biological assessment of the ranch
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 43
RFTOP &
Cost
Extension
Proposal
Indicators
Indicators Activities plus
Evaluators’ Snapshot Assessment
of Current Status
assisted by updates status from AWF
including range condition
Accomplished
Facilitate TLCT abattoir to develop appropriate environment
management systems
Not accomplished
Finalize Manyara ranch General Management Plan (GMP)
translation into Swahili and sharing it with communities
synchronization with the business plan
Not accomplished
Facilitate MRALIPA / Manyara ranch to train Oltokai, Esilalei, Mswakini Chini and Juu communities on beef
production
Not accomplished
Facilitate Manyara ranch abattoir conservation logic
integration into community livestock enterprise
Not accomplished
Support integration of learning from Manyara Ranch into
development of appropriate livestock strategy for other
areas in TMKNE in the WMAs
Not accomplished
3.1.4 Support demarcation/
gazette Kashmiri corridor in west
Kilimanjaro
Accomplished
3.1.5: Improved conservation of
target water catchment and
hydrological systems in TMKNE
including: Ngorogoro Highlands,
Mbulu/Karatu highlands, the
Tarangire watershed, and Gelai
and Kitumbeine catchment forest,
that provide water to communities
and wildlife in critical wildlife
habitats
Provide sub-grant to local NGO MBK to continue and
expand agro-forestry techniques in Karatu Hill
Not accomplished for YR5
Work with Karatu district council and other partners to
implement the Karatu hills/Lake Manyara national park soil
erosion control strategy
Accomplished
Facilitate implementation of JFM/PFM in Gelai and
Kitumbeine forest/ harmonization with WMA
On-going
3.1.6: Pilot REDD preparedness
including extension of possible
Kolo Hills pilot study to a second
site and support CC adaptation in
the pastoralist areas
Support some ARKFor REDD activities in Kolo forest area
including: LUPs and livelihoods option.
On-going. Reported “greater part accomplished.”
Sub-grant local community Based Organization Inuit e’Maa
to carry out CC adaptation trainings, demonstrations on CC
adaptation
Accomplished
Carry out stakeholders’ assessment on their capabilities to
implement CC and stakeholders adaption to CC in key
projects’ area.
Accomplished
3.1.7: Strengthen management Support Lake Manyara national park to implement soil
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 44
RFTOP &
Cost
Extension
Proposal
Indicators
Indicators Activities plus
Evaluators’ Snapshot Assessment
of Current Status
assisted by updates status from AWF
and sustainability of Lake
Manyara National Park
erosion and siltation reduction of Lake Manyara strategy
Reported half-accomplished
IR 3.2:
Increase and
apply
scientific
understanding
of ecosystem
function,
quality and
linkages to
conservation
and
management
decision
making
3.2.1: Support lion research in
Tarangire and Simanjaro plains
Implement planned and ongoing ecological monitoring and
research program and feed into improved conservation
practice at a landscape level
Accomplished
Identify most effective means of integrating climate change
impact monitoring into existing research program
Reported accomplished
3.2.2: Support research into and
conservation of the trans- boundary Kilimanjaro elephant
population
Implement planned and ongoing ecological monitoring and
research program and feed into improved conservation
practice at a landscape level, including monitoring corridor
Accomplished
3.2.3: Monitor climate change
parameters across the landscape
including climate change impacts
and assessment of carbon content
of ecosystem forests and other
habitat types
AWF GIS team collect available secondary data for wider
TMKNE and supplement with primary data collection from
within the landscape.
Accomplished
AWF GIS and climate change teams to collect and assess
information about available carbon baseline methodologies
Initiate improved collaboration with and support for TNP GIS
work.
Not accomplished
3.2.4: Expand and strengthen
wildlife security and data
collection efforts across the
TMKNE landscape, including
facilitating local Anti-poaching
units in the WMAS and other
wildlife corridors and dispersal
areas.
Facilitate strengthening monitoring and data collection by
selected VGS units across the landscape; implementing
landscape wide anti-poaching monitoring information
system
On-going
Facilitate stakeholder participation in anti-poaching network
with a view to securing long term financial and decision- making
On-going
Facilitate Coordination VGS networks units (providing
equipment, patrols, food rations) of Burunge, Enduimet,
Manyara ranch, Yaeda-Chini and Makame and expand
support for new units in the Lake Natron and Randilen
WMAs.
Accomplished except in Natron and Enduimet
Provide sub-grant to TAWIRI for annual animal census in
wider landscape as a basis for improved monitoring
Accomplished
Continue implement training activities for various
stakeholders in the anti-poaching units, agreeing priorities
On-going
IR 3.3: Create
incentives for
Intervention 3.3.1 Facilitate
enterprise planning and
Finalize publishing of the WMA Best Practice Toolkit and
share
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 45
RFTOP &
Cost
Extension
Proposal
Indicators
Indicators Activities plus
Evaluators’ Snapshot Assessment
of Current Status
assisted by updates status from AWF
conservation
and
livelihoods
benefits
through the
development
of eco-tourism
and other
conservation
enterprise
activities
development in the Burunge,
Enduimet, Makame and in new
WMAs when ready
Accomplished
Continue Building Capacity of Burunge and Enduimet,
Makame and Randilen WMA CBOs to enable them to
develop and manage income and business enterprises
Work in progress: some gains/ some defeats
Facilitate enterprise agreements contracts in Burunge,
Enduimet, Makame and Randilen to align them with the
newly revised WMA regulations
Accomplished in Burunge, Enduimet and Makame
Undertake enterprise scoping for Makame, Randilen and
Lake Natron WMA.
Accomplished in Makame and Randilen
Solicit for investors for Makame, Randilen and Lake Natron
Accomplished in Makame
Continue building capacity for financial planning and
management of the AAs business flow for Burunge,
Enduimet Makame, Yaeda Chini and Randilen and Lake
Natron
Done for Burunge, Randilen, Makame and Enduimet
Continue facilitate dialogue to improve the existing Benefit
Sharing Mechanisms (BSM)
On-going
Assess lessons learned, document AWF experience so far
with respect to conservation areas namely: WMAs and
Manyara ranch
Accomplished for WMA only
Continue supporting Women Conservation Enterprises
(CEs) building financial, production skills
On-going
3.3.2 Missing
Intervention 3.3.3: Expand current
livestock ‘value adding’ and
management program from
Manyara Ranch into other parts of
ecosystem, including AWF’s
Kilimanjaro Heartland
Strengthen Manyara Ranch livestock management
Accomplished
Develop appropriate livestock strategy and integration on
Manyara Ranch
Half accomplished
Support Manyara Ranch/TLCT to operationalize the abattoir
though private operations and/or otherwise
Not accomplished
Support innovative livestock value adding opportunities for
pastoralists across landscape, e.g. through improved
marketing,
On-going fattening program and Manyara Ranch
IR 3.4:
Support local
Intervention 3.4.1: Increase the
technical and organizational
Facilitate partners and stakeholders to undertake key
training program including: WMAs Authorized Associations
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 46
RFTOP &
Cost
Extension
Proposal
Indicators
Indicators Activities plus
Evaluators’ Snapshot Assessment
of Current Status
assisted by updates status from AWF
institutions
and partners
to strengthen
their capacity,
efficiency and
ability to fulfill
their missions
and contribute
to
conservation
and
development
schemes
capacity of TLCT, and partner
AAs in target WMAs and eight
partner districts
Accomplished
Carrying out targeted training activities, directly by AWF and
through partners as appropriate, including scholarships for
VGS, District official, Institutions like TAWIRI, TANAPA
Done- VGS were sponsored to Likuyu Institute
Provide technical support to TLCT Secretariat (annual
Board meetings, Training workshop), including assessment
of need for agreed indicators for strategic goals.
Not accomplished
Intervention 3.4.2: Strengthen
conservation capacity in local civil
society organizations through a
Small Grants Program
Continue with small grants programs through identifying
capable local CBO/CSO/NGO and contracting them and
tracking their performance through regular field visits and
quarterly reporting
On-going
Intervention 3.4.3: Support
Community Environment Award
Scheme (CEAS)
Conduct CEAS Events in 2 districts of Mbulu and Babati
Accomplished at Babati and Kondoa
IR 3.5
Advocate for
and contribute
to supportive
policy
frameworks in
Tanzania and
the region
Intervention 3.5.1: Support
national and regional policies
which promote effective natural
resource management, trans- boundary collaboration, benefits to
communities,
Facilitate policy discussion and feedback mechanisms
among stakeholders and suggest priorities for
considerations to relevant stakeholders and government
Accomplished and on-going
Continue supporting trans-boundary resource management
between Tanzania and Kenya,
Accomplished
Intervention 3.5.2: Support
development and implementation
of appropriate climate change
mitigation and adaptation
strategies.
Contribute data and lessons learned from SCALE-TZ and
other AWF’s leveraged projects to appropriate district and
national processes.
On-going
Intervention 3.5.3: Enable AWF’s
active participation and leadership
in the Strategic Objective team.
Participate in & facilitate SOT meetings, TMKNE meetings,
CBNRM-WG meetings and other high level meetings
Accomplished
Carry out comprehensive SCALE-TZ project evaluation
Accomplished
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 47
ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
KII, FGD and Mini Survey Questionnaires
and Direct Observation Checklist
1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDELINE (English only/ no Swahili version)
Interviewee _______________________________ Date ________ TAPE start ______________ Familiarity with SCALE ____________________________
Interviewer: ______________________________ TAPE Finish ____________
General KII/FGD Questions
1. What are some successful activities of the SCALE project? (EFFECTIVENESS)
2. How important are these activities? (RELEVANCE)
3. What are some of the difficulties? (CONSTRAINTS )
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP)
5. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY)
6. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER)
7. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for a new set of activities?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 48
2. FOCUS GROUP GUIDELINES (English Version) (12 Guidelines)
WMA Development
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Are you aware of the WMA Activities in this village? ______________________
 What can you say about it? ___________________________________________
 Has it made any other difference in the lives of the community members? ______
 What difference? (both positive and negative)_____________________________
 Are all relevant stakeholders in the community involved in WMA management?  How are the decisions made and by who? ________________________________
 What are some of the benefits of WMA to you as a community member? _______
 How are the benefits shared? Are there guidelines on how the benefits are shared?
1.a WMA and anti-poaching
 Who is involved in anti-poaching at the WMA? ___________________________
 How are they selected and with which criteria? ____________________________
 Do they undergo training on how to do their work? ________________________
 Does the WMA allocate resources to them to do their work? _________________
 Does the team work with other WMAs and local administration in anti-poaching?
1.b WMA and land use planning
 What have been WMA efforts in LUP? ___________________________________
 How successful have they been? ________________________________________
 How important are they in the mind of WMA village decision making? __________
 How long-term (sustainable?) are these changes of village thinking? ____________
1.c WMA and wildlife conflicts  What have been WMA efforts in wildlife conflict mitigation? _________________
 How successful have these efforts been? __________________________________
 How important are they in the mind of WMA village decision making? __________
 How long term (sustainable) are these changes of village thinking? ____________
1.d How can the WMA be managed better? __________________________________
 How regularly do you attend WMA meetings and what type of meetings are called?  Are there laws that govern WMA? If yes, which ones? ______________________
 Does the management share information? _________________________________
 How frequently do you have meetings and what kind of meetings? ____________
 Have you ever seen the WMA records? __________________________________
1.e Have household incomes improved as a result of the project?  What income generating activities have taken place? ________________________
 Are there written procedures for distribution of revenues? ____________________
 Has revenue been distributed to the community/village level or to individuals? ___
 Have village expectations regarding revenue distribution been satisfied? ________
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these WMA activities? (RELEVANCE) ___
 Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? _______
 What difference, do you think they can make? _____________________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 49
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?  Has the project met the needs of the community members? __________________
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  What are the challenges WMA faces in meeting the needs of the members? _____
 How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _____
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? ____________
 Are community members interested in these activities? If yes why? If no, why not?  Are you involved or benefitting from this project? _________________________
 Was the community involved in monitoring? In what role? __________________
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) _______________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity?
5. Without outside support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) ____
 Can WMA run without external support? _________________________________
 What support is needed to make them self-sustaining and for how long? ________
 What sustainability measures have the community put in place to ensure that these activities
continue without support from the NGOs? _______________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? ____________________________
 What has worked really well (strengths)? ___________________________________
 And what has not worked really well? (weaknesses) __________________________
7. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) _______
 Are women actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? ______
 Are women physically doing the activity themselves? _______________________
8. What is the impact of this project in the community? ________________________
 What are the benefits of conservation? ___________________________________
 Do you have an idea (s) how these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) ________________________________________________
9. Based on what you have said so far, what RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you
provide for this project to make it better in future? ______________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 50
Anti-Poaching
(applied to general community)
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Are you aware of the anti-poaching project activities in the village? What anti-poaching
activities are they? ______________________________________________________
 Has anti-poaching had made a visible difference in this village? If yes, what difference? If
not, why do you say so? __________________________________________________
 What is the role of the community in this project? Probe: Monitoring
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these anti-poaching activities? (RELEVANCE)  Have these anti-poaching activities made a long-term difference to you/the village?  If yes, what difference? If not, why do you say so? ______________________________
 Did the programme target the right beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus? _______
 Has the project met the needs of the community members? ______________________
3. What challenges did you experience during the implementation of this activity? (CONSTRAINTS)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _________
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _________________
 Is the village as a whole interested in anti – poaching? If yes, why do you say so? If no, why
not? ___________________________________________________________________
 Is the community involved in the anti–poaching project? _________________________
 What capacity building and facilitation were provided to anti-poaching staff? ________
4. How should these activities grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) ____________________
 Is the larger village becoming interested in anti-poaching? _______________________
 Or other villages interested too? ____________________________________________
5. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) ___
 Will the village continue these anti-poaching activities by itself? _________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? ______________________
7. What has been the involvement of women or impact on them? (GENDER)  Are women involved in anti-poaching activities, planning or decision-making? ______
 Are women physically doing any anti-poaching activity themselves? _______________
8. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more anti-poaching activities?  Do you have an idea on how these activities could be more successful? ___________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 51
Anti-Poaching
(applied to Village Game Scouts)
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  What have been some of the important successes of your (anti-poaching) work? ____
 Has it made any other difference for you or the village? _______________________
 What differences? _____________________________________________________
 What is the role of the community in this project? Probe: Monitoring ____________
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) __________
 Will these anti-poaching activities make long-term difference to you/the village? ___
 What differences? ______________________________________________________
 Why? ________________________________________________________________
 Does the village recognize the importance of anti-poaching? Why do you say so? ___
3. What are some of the problems? (CONSTRAINTS ) __________________________
 Have these anti-poaching activities caused any difficulty in the community? _______
 Was the village as a whole interested in these activities? _______________________
 Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
 What were some other problems? _________________________________________
 Have you been paid regularly? Is it a fair wage for your work? __________________ 4. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this activity? Which? _____________________
5. How can the anti-poaching campaign grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) ____________
6. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) ____
7. What has been the involvement of women or impact in anti-poaching (GENDER)  Are women involved in anti-poaching activities, planning or decision-making? ______
 Are women physically doing any anti-poaching activity themselves? ______________
8. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more anti-poaching activities?  Do you have an idea how these activities could be more successful? ______________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 52
Manyara Ranch
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Do you know about activities at Manyara Ranch? _________________________________
 What are its activities? _______________________________________________________
 Has Manyara Ranch made a visible difference in this village? If yes, what diffeence? If no,
why do you say so? ________________________________________________________
 What is the community relationship with Manyara Ranch? _________________________
 Does the community get resources from Manyara ranch? What? _____________________
2. How important (to you/ the village) is Manyara ranch? (RELEVANCE) ______________
 What long-term difference will Manyara ranch make to you/the village? Why do you say so? __________________________________________________________________________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus,?  Has the project met the needs of the community members? __________________________
3. What challenges did you experience during the implementation of this project?
(CONSTRAINTS)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _____________
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _____________________
 Are the community members interested in Manyara Ranch? If yes why, If no, why do you say
so? _______________________________________________________________________
 Are you/your family involved or benefitting from this project (Manyara Ranch)? If yes, how?
If no, why? _________________________________________________________________
4. How can Manyara Ranch grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) __________________________
 Is the larger village becoming interested in Manyara Ranch? ________________________
5. How will Manyara Ranch activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) __________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? __________________________
7. What has been the involvement of women with Manyara Ranch, or the Ranch’s impact on
them? (GENDER) ________________________________________________________________
 Are women involved in Manyara Ranch activities, planning or decision-making? _______
 Are women physically doing any Manyara Ranch activity themselves? ________________
8. What is the impact of this project to the community? ________________________________
9. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more Manyara Ranch activities?  Do you have an idea how these activities could be more successful? __________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 53
Livestock Development
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Are you aware of livestock development activities in this village? ____________
 Please describe the cattle improvement activities that are part of Ranch operations  What can you say about it? ___________________________________________
 Has it made any other difference in the lives of the community members involved in the
project? What difference? _________________________________________
 What is the current situation regarding the functioning of the abattoir? _________
 Has the machinery been installed and is it working? _______________________
 What will be the managing entity of the abattoir? What do you know of the key terms of the
contract? ________________________________________________
 Please describe some of the “outreach” of the Ranch to nearby villages? _______
 What impact has the Ranch had on improved flow of water in the Tarangire river? _________________________________________________________________
 How is this being monitored? _________________________________________
 Is there a gap in addressing the livelihood issues especially pastoralists interests in the
project implementation? ___________________________________________
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) ______
 Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? ______
 What difference, do you think? ________________________________________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?  Has the project met the needs of the community members? ___________________
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _____
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _____________
 Are community members interested in these activities? If yes why, If no, why not?  Are you personally involved or benefitting from this project? _________________
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) ________________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity?
5. Without outside support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY)  What sustainability measures have the community put in place to ensure that these activities
continue without support from the NGOs? ________________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? ___________________
7. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) ______
 Are women actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? ____
 Are women physically doing the activity themselves? _____________________
8. How these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) _________
9. Based on what you have said so far, what RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you
provide for this project to make it better in future? ______________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 54
Cash-for-Work
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Are you aware of the cash-for-work activities in this village? __________________
 What were the cash for work activities? ___________________________________
 Has it made any other difference for you or the community? If yes, what difference? If no,
why do you say so? ____________________________________________________
 Were people fairly paid for the work? ______________________________________
 Was the community trained on the cash for work programme? ___________________
2. How important (to you/ the village) were these activities? (RELEVANCE) _________
 Will these things make any long-term difference to you or the village? _____________
 What difference, do you think? _____________________________________________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?  Has the project met the needs of the community members? _______________________
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _________
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _________________
 Is the village as a whole interested in the cash for work project? ___________________
 Why or why not? _________________________________________________________
 Were you personally involved in the cash for work project? ______________________
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) ____________________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity? ______________________________________________________________________
5. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY)
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? _______________________
7. What has been the impact on women – or their involvement? (GENDER)  Were women been actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? ___
 Were women physically doing any of the work themselves? _____________________
 Were women paid the same for the work as the men? __________________________
8. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more CfW activities?  Do you have an idea how this activity could be more successful? __________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 55
Micro finance or Micro-credit
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Do you know about any new micro-finance/ micro-credit activities in the village? _____
 Has it made any other difference for you or the village? If yes, what difference? If no, why do you
say so? _________________________________________________________________
 What are the requirements to join the micro-finance? ____________________________
 Is the membership open to both men and women in equal measure? ________________
 Does it have laws that govern how it is managed? ______________________________
 How frequently does it hold meetings and how are they conducted? ________________
 Does the management share information freely with the members? _________________
 What is the composition of the board and management team? _____________________
 Are records accessible to the members? _______________________________________
 Where does the bank have its nearest functional bank office? ______________________
 Does the management share information about what is going on in the bank with members?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) ___________
 Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? If yes, what difference? If
no, why do you say so? ____________________________________________________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus? _____
 Has the project met the needs of the community members? ________________________
 What are the benefits the community members have gained from the project? _________
3. What challenges were experienced during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? __________
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? __________________
 Is the village as a whole interested in the micro – credit project? ____________________
 Are you involved in the micro credit project? ___________________________________
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) ______________________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity? ____
5. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) ______
 Can the village continue these activities by itself? ________________________________
 Has the village bank ever had plans to expand and cover new areas? _________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? If yes, which ones? ________________
7. What has been the impact on women – or their involvement? (GENDER) ____________
 Have women been actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? _____
 Are women physically doing any of the work themselves? _________________________
8. Based on what you have said so far, what RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for a micro￾finance/ micro-credit activities? _______________________________________________
 Do you have an idea how this activity could be more successful? ____________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 56
Karatu REDD/ ARKFor
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Do you know anything about new forestry activities in this village? ______________
 What can you say about it? ______________________________________________
 What have been other projects activities in conservation in this area? _____________
 What other support has the project gotten recently and what aspects have been supported?  What are some of the benefits of the project activities to the community? List some of the actual
benefits and beneficiaries? _________________________________________________
 Has it made any money for you or the village? _________________________________
 Other than money, has it made any other difference for you or the village? __________
 What difference? ________________________________________________________
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) ___________
 Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? If yes, what difference? If
no, why do you say so? ________________________________________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus? ____
 Has the project met the needs of the community members? _______________________
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) ___
 What are some of the problems you have encountered during implementation? _______
 How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? __________
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _________________
 Are the community members interested in these activities? If yes why, If not, why do you say so? _______________________________________________________________________
 Are you/your family involved or benefitting from this project? ____________________
4. How can these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) _______________________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity? __
5. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) ____
 Are you ready to continue with the project at the end of donor support? _____________
 Will the village continue these activities by itself? If yes, how? If no, why not? _______
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? If yes, which ones? ________________
7. What has been the involvement of women or impact on them? (GENDER) _______________
 Have women been actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? _____
 Are women physically doing the activity themselves? _____________________________
8. Based on what you have said so far, what RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you make
for the project in future? ____________________________________________________
 Do you have an idea how this activity could be more successful? ____________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 57
Karatu Women’s Nursery
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS)  Are you aware of the women’s’ Nursery Activities in this village? _____________
 What can you say about it? ____________________________________________
 Has it made any other difference in the lives of the community members (women) involved in
the project? What difference? ________________________________
 What has been the contribution of the project to women participation in generating income to
the household? _____________________________________________
 What are some of the special skills do project participants have? ______________
 How many seedlings have been raised to date and how are they distributed? _____
 What information is collected on survival rate of the seedlings? _______________
 What is the survival rate? _____________________________________________
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these nursery activities? (RELEVANCE)  Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? _______
 What difference, do you think they can make? ____________________________
 What is the role of the other community members in the project? ______________
 Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?  Has the project met the needs of the community members? __________________
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  What are some of the challenges that the groups have faced? _________________
 How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? _____
 What would you do differently if the project continues elsewhere? _____________
 Are community members interested in these activities? If yes why, If not, why do you say so? ____________________________________________________________
 Are you personally involved or benefitting from this project? _________________
4. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) _________________
 Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity?
5. Without outside support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) _____
 Is the project now self-sustaining or still needs support? ______________________
 What sustainability measures have the community put in place to ensure that these activities
continue without support from the NGOs? ________________________
6. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? ____________________
7. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) ________
 Are women actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? ______
 Are women physically doing the activity themselves? ________________________
8. How these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) ____________
9. Based on what you have said so far, what RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you
provide for this project to make it better in future? ______________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 58
Women’s Economic Activities
1. What kind of economic activity/business are you involved in? ______________
 Where do you operate your business? ______________________________
2. Have you received any funding and/or grant for your business in the last two years to develop
your business? _____________________________________________
 If yes, from whom did you receive the funding/grant? __________________
 How much grant/funding did you receive? ___________________________
 What did you use the money for?__________________________________
 Was it adequate for your business? _________________________________
3. Have you received any training to develop your skills on managing your business? If yes what
kind of training? From which organization? ______________________
4. What challenges do you face in conducting your business? [Probe]  Competition from men? __________________________________________
 Lack of capital? ________________________________________________
 Inexperience with business practices? _______________________________
 Other? _______________________________________________________
5. Is this project important to the community members? If yes why do you say so? ________________________________________________________________
6. Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?
(Relevance)  Has the project met the needs of the community members? _______________
7. What is the impact of the women economic intervention in the community? __________________________________________________________________
8. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? ___________________
9. What do you think can be done to make this project better in future? ________
10. What recommendations would you provide for better management of the programme in the
future? ____________________________________________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 59
HIV/AIDS
1. Are you aware of the HIV/AIDS support group in this community? ___________
 Are you a member of the HIV/AIDS support group in this community? _____
 What are the activities of this group? ________________________________
 What are the selection criteria for the members?
 Is the community as whole involved in this project? If yes, what is the role of the
community? Probe: Monitoring
2. What is/are the benefit(s) of this HIV/AIDS support group in this village? ______
3. Has this project met the needs of the community members? _________________
4. Does the HIV/AIDS support group receive any support? If yes, what? From whom?
5. Has the local NGO has been conducting trainings on HIV/AIDS? ____________
 Are you aware of these trainings? ___________________________________
 Did you attend these trainings? _____________________________________
 Do you remember what they talked about? ____________________________
6. What is the impact of this project to the community members? ______________
7. Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus?
(Relevance)  Has the project met the needs of the community members? ______________
8. What challenges are facing this group in the community? ___________________
9. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? ___________________
10. What do you think can be done to make this project better in future? _________
11. What recommendations would you provide for better management of the programme in the
future? ______________________________________________________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 60
Gender
(applied only to women by female team member)
1. Have you notices that the project had any special or unusual way to address issues of
women directly? _________________________________________________________ What was it? ______________________________________________________ Why do you think so? _______________________________________________
2. How has the project integrated women’s considerations into its activities? ______
__________________________________________________________________
3. To what extent have both sexes participated and benefited from project activities? ___________________________________________________________________
4. What are/(were) some of the challenges of involving women more in project
activities?________________________________________________________________
5. Has the project developed any measures to enhance women’s participation in project
activities? What were they? __________________________________________________
6. Do you think the project was generally successful in these efforts? ______________
7. Did the project action have any influence on the status of women and men? If yes,
describe. ________________________________________________________________
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 61
3. FOCUS GROUP GUIDELINES (SWAHILI Translation)
ANTI-POACHING (APPLIED TO VILLAGE GAME SCOUTS)
KUPAMBANA NA UJANGILI
(KUTUMIKA KWA SCOUT WA KIJIJI)
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shuguli zilizo fanikiwa? (UFANISI)  What have been some of the important successes of your (anti-poaching) work? Nini yamekuwa mafanikio yako ya
muhimu katika kazi yako ya kupambana na ujangiri?
 Has it made any other difference for you or the village? Je, imeleta tofauti yoyote kwa ajili yako au kijiji?
 What differences? Je ni tofauti zipi?
 Have you received any anti-poaching training? What was it? Je umepata mafunzo yoyote ya kupambana
na ujangili? Ilikuwa ni nini?
 For how long have you been involved? Kwa muda gani umekuwa unausika katika shuguli hizi za
kupambana na ujangil  Do you have partnership with other anti-stakeholders in anti-poaching? Who? What? Je, unashirikiana na wadau
wengine katika kupambana na ujangili? Ni Nani? Na mnashirikiana katika nini?
 How effective have those partnerships been? Je ushirikiano huo una ufanisi kwa kiwango gani ?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) kwa jinsi gani shuguli hizi ni muhimu
kwako / kwa kijiji? (UMUHIMU)  Will these anti-poaching activities make long-term difference to you/the village? Je, shuguli za kupambana na
ujangili zitaleta mabadiliko ya muda mrefu kwako/ kwa kijiji?
 Why? kwa nini?
 Does the village recognize the importance of anti-poaching? Why do you think? Je, kijiji kinatambua umuhimu
wa kupambana na ujangili? Kwa nini unafikiri?
3. What are some of the difficulties in anti-poaching? (CONSTRAINTS ) Ni nini baadhi ya matatizo (ugumu)
katika kupambana na ujangili? (VIKWAZO)  Have these anti-poaching activities caused any difficulty in the community? Je, shughuli za kupambana na
ujangili zinasababishia jamii ugumu wowote?
 Have you been paid regularly? Je umekuwa ukilipwa mara kwa mara?
4. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from anti-poaching? Which? Je, kuna mambo uliyojifunza kutokana
na shuguli za kupambana na ujangili? Taja mambo uliyojifunza ?
5. How can the anti-poaching campaign grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) Kwa jinsi gani kampeni ya kupambana
na ujangili inaweza kukuwa na kupanua? (KUKUA). 6. Without outside support, how will anti-poaching continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Bila misaada kutoka kwa
wafadhiri, je kupamabana na ujangili kunawezaje kuendelea?( UENDELEVU)
7. What has been the involvement of women or impact in anti-poaching (GENDER) Je wanawake wamekuwa waki
husishwa kwenye shuguli gani za kupambana na ujangili?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 62
 Are women involved in anti-poaching activities, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wameusishwa katika
upangaji na utoaji wa maamuzi katika shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri?  Are women physically doing any anti-poaching activity themselves? Je wanawake wanahusika moja kwa
moja katika shuguli za kupambana na ujangili?
8. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more anti-poaching activities? Je una maoni / mapendekezo
unayoweza kutoa ili kuweza kufanikisha shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri?
Anti Poaching- General Community
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shuguli zilizo fanikiwa? (UFANISI)  Are there anti-poaching project activities in the village? What are they? _____________?
Je kuna shuguli za miradi ya kuzuia ujangiri katika kijiji hiki? Je ni zipi?
decrease of human-wildlife conflicts, crop destruction, and livelihood activities. •Dadisi: upungufu wa migogoro
kati ya binadamu na wanyamapori, uharibifu wa mazao, na shuguli za maisha.  Has anti-poaching made a visible difference in this village? If yes, what difference? If not, why do you say so? Je
kupambana na ujangiri kumeleta utofauti unaoonekana katika kijiji hiki? Kama
ndiyo, ni tofauti zipi? Kama sio, kwanini unasema hivyo?
 Are you pleased that VGS are working here? Why? Unafurahiya kwamba vikundi vya scout wa Kijiji
wanafanya kazi hapa? Kwa nini?
 Do you as villagers monitor the activities of the VGS? Je nyinyi kama wanakijiji mnafatilia shuguli za
vikundi vya scout wa kijiji?
2. What challenges were seen during the implementation of anti-poaching? (CONSTRAINTS) Ni changamoto gani zilizo
jitokeza katika utekelezaji wa kupambana na ujangili? VIKWAZO)  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? Ni jinsi gani mliweza kutatua hizo
changamoto na, / ni njia kani bora za kuweza kushugulikia changa moto hizo?
 Is the village as a whole interested in anti – poaching? Why/why not? Je kijiji kwa ujumla kinafurahia
shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri? Kwanini/ kwanini siyo?
3. Without outside support, how will anti-poaching continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Bila misaada kutoka kwa
wafadhili, je kupamabana na ujangili kunaweza kuendelea? ( UENDELEVU)
4. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from anti-poaching? Which? Je kuna vitu umejifunza kutokana na shuguli
za kupambana na ujangiri? Je nini?
5. Are women involved in anti-poaching activities, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wameusishwa katika
upangaji na utoaji wa maamuzi katika shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri?  Are women physically doing any anti-poaching activity themselves? Je wanawake wanahusika moja kwa
moja wao wenyewe katika shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 63
 What has been the anti-poaching impact on women? Ni niini matokeo ya kupambana na ujangili kwa
wanawake?
6. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for success in more anti-poaching activities? Unaweza kutoa
maonigani / mapendekezo gani ili kuweza kufanikisha shuguli za kupambana na
ujangiri
Cash-for-Work
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) UFANISI
Are you aware of the cash-for-work activities in this village? Je wewe unafahamu kuhusu fedha kwa ajili ya shughuli za
kazi katika kijiji?
What were the cash for work activities? Je fedha ilikua kwa ajili ya shughuli/kazi gani?
Were community members involved in the CfW planning? Je wanajamii walishiriki katika kupanga CFW?
Has it made any other difference for you or the community? If yes, what diff? Je imeleta utofauti wowote kwako au jamii?kama
ndio ,ni utofauti upi?
f no, why do you say so? Kama hapana kwanini unassema hivo?
About how many CfW activities took place? Kwa kiasi gani shughuli za CFW zinanyika? _________ Were people promptly paid for their work? Je, watu hulipwa mara moja kwa kazi yao? _________
2. How important (to you/ the village) were these activities? (RELEVANCE) Ina umuhimu kiasi gani (kwako/kwa jamii)
kwa shughuli hizi?(UMUHIMU)
Will CfW make any long-term difference to you or the village? Je CFW imefanya jambo lolote la tofauti ya muda
mrefu kwako au kijiji?
What difference, do you think? Ni utofauti gani huo
Has the CFW projects met the needs of the community members? Je miradi ya CFW imekidhi mahitaji ya wanajamii
3. Has the CFW project had any IMPACT on the community? Je mradi wa CWF umeleta athari kwa jamii?
If yes, what? Kama ndio ni zipi? If no, why not? Kama hapana kwanini hapana?
4. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) Ni changamoto gani zilijitokeza
katika utekelezaji wa mradi huu? (VIKWAZO)
How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? Na mlizitatua vipi changamoto hizo/na nini
kifanyike kuziboresha?
What would you do differently if CFW would continue elsewhere? Ni nini ungefanya cha tofauti endapo CFW ingeendelea
sehemu nyingine?
Was the village as a whole interested in the cash for work project? Why or why not? Je wanakijiji wana maslahi na mradi huu wa
CFW? Kwanini na kwanini hapana?
Were you personally involved in the cash for work project? ______________________ 5. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? Je ni jambo gani ulilojifunza kutokana na mradi huu?
6. What has been the impact on women – or their involvement? (GENDER) were women been actively involved in the activity, planning or
decision-making? Ni nini athari za kushirikishwa kwa wanawake kwenye shughuli,au kupanga,au kufanya
maamuzi?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 64
Were women physically doing any of the work themselves? Je wanawake wanashiriki moja kwa moja kkatika kufanya kazi
peke yao?
Were women paid the same for the work as the men? Je wanawake wanalipwa kiasi sawa cha pesa na wanaume?
7. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more CfW activities? Je ni nini maoni ambayo ungependekeza zaidi
katika kazi za CFW?
What could be done differently next time? Ni nini kifanyike cha tofauti wakati ujao?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 65
Gender
(applied only to women by female team member)
1. Have you noticed that the project had any special way to address women’s issues? What was it?
Je umegundua kua mradi huu ulikua na njia yoyote maalumu ya
kushughulikia masuala ya wanawake? Je ni njia ipi hiyo?
Why do you think so? Kwa nini unafikiria hivyo
2. How has the project integrated women’s considerations into its activities? Ni kwa jinsi gani mradi huu
umejumuisha masuala ya wanake kwenye shughuli zake?
 Has the project integrated women’s participation in decision-making, leadership and governance? Je mradi huu
umewajumuisha na kuwashirikisha wanawake katika kufanya
maamuzi, uongozi, kuongoza
 Do the men listen when you (the women) offer suggestions? Je wanaume wanawasikiliza
(wanawake) mnapotoa ushauri
3. To what extent have both sexes participated and benefited from project activities? Ni kwa kiasi gani
jinsia zote walishiriki na kunufaika kutokana na shughuli za mradi?
 What are the actual benefits you (women) have received from project activities? Je ni nini faida za nyinyi
(wanake) mnazopata kutoka kwenye shughuli za mradi?
4. What are/(were) some of the challenges of involving women more in project activities? Ni nini baadhi ya
changamoto za kuwashirikisha wanawake zaidi katika shughuli za mradi?
5. Has the project developed any measures to enhance women’s participation in project activities? What were they?
Je mradi umeleta maendeleo ya hatua yoyote ya kuongeza wanawake
kushirika katika shughuli za mradi? Ni yapi?
6. Do you think the project was generally successful in these efforts?
Unafikiri mradi huu kwa ujumla una mafanikio katika juhudi zake?
7. Did the project action have any influence on the status of women and men? If yes, describe.
Je hatua za mradi zimekuwa na ushawishi wowote juu ya hadhi ya wanawake
na wanaume?kama ndio elezea.
8. Have you had any training/ exchange visits on any of the project activities? Je umewahi kupata
mafunzo/kubadilisha kutembelea shughuli zozote za mradi?
Karatu Agro-forestry, Conservation and Women’s Nursery
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 66
Kilimo mseto, Uhifadhi na Kitalu cha Wanawake Karatu
(Kwa ajili ya Kikundi chenye Kitalu na Kikundi cha Jirani)
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shughuli zilizofanikiwa? (UFANISI)  Are you aware of the women’s’ Nursery Activities in this village? Je unafahamu kama kuna shughuli za kitalu
cha miti za wanawake katika kijiji hiki?  What can you say about it?Unaweza kusema nini kuhusu shughuli hizo?
 Has it made a difference in the lives of the community members (women) involved in the project? What difference?
Je zimeleta tofauti yoyote katika maisha ya wanajamii (wanawake) wanaohusika katika
shughuli hiyo? Tofauti hiyo ni ipi  What are some of the special skills project participants have? Je ni ujuzi gani maalumu walionao washiriki
wa mradi huu?  How many seedlings have been raised to date and how are they distributed? Ni miche mingapi wameshaotesha
hadi leo na inasambazwaje?  How many of your plants survive? Ni mimea mingapi inakuwa?  Are there other conservation activities that have taken place? Which ones? Je, kuna shughuli zingine za uhifadhi
wa mazingira ambazo zinafanyika? Ni zipi hizo?  Have these been “successful”, or not very much? Je, shughuli zimekuwa na mafanikio au siyo?  Have you or the village learned to do anything new as a result of these activities? What? Je, wewe au kijiji mmejifunza
kufanya kitu chochote kipya au kwa namna mpya kama matokeo ya kuwa na shughuli
hizi? Ni nini hicho?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE) Shughuli hizi zinaumuhimu gani
(kwako/kwa kijiji)? (UMUHIMU)  Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? Je shughuli hizi zitaleta tofauti yoyote
ya muda mrefu kwako au kwa kijiji chako?  What difference, do you think they can make? Tofauti hizo zinazoweza kuletwa ni zipi?  What is the role of other community members in the project? Je kuna namna yeyote wanajamii wengine
wanahusika katika mradi huu?  3.What is the IMPACT of the project on community members? Mradi unaathari(nzuri na mbaya) gani kwa
wanajamii?
4.
5. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) Je ni changamoto gani zilionekana
wakati wa utekelezaji wa mradi huu? (VIKWAZO)  What are some of the challenges that the activities have faced? Ni changamoto gani ambazo shughuli hizi
zimekumbana nazo?  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? Ulitatuaje changamoto hizo au
unafikiri zinaweza kupata suluhu gani?  What would you do differently if the activities continue elsewhere? Kama shughuli hizi zingefanyika
kwingineko tofauti ingekuwa ni nini?  Are community members interested in these activities? Why or why not? Je wana jamii wanamaslai na shughuli
hizi? Kama ndiyo ni Kwanini na Kama siyo ni kwa nini?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 67
 Are you personally involved or benefitting from this project? Je wewe kama wewe unajihusisha au unafaidi
kutokana na mradi huu?  How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) Je unafikiri shughuli hizi zinaweza kukuwa na
kupanuka kwa namna gani? (KUONGEZEKA)  Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity? Je kuna mtu yeyote (zaidi ya
wanakikundi) anamaslai au anapendelea shughuli hizi?  Without outside support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Je, bila msaada wa kutoka nje shughuli
zinawezakuendelea? (UENDELEVU)  How much profit has the group made? Je kikundi kimeshapata faida kiasi gani?  Is theproject now self-sustaining or still needs support? Je mradi kwa sasa unajitegemea au unahitaji
msaada?  How could these activities continue without support from the MBK? Je ni namna gani shughuli hizi zinaweza
kuendelea bila msaada wa MBK?
6.Are there Lessons learnt from this project? Which?Kuna chochote ulichojifunza kutokana na mradi huu? Na
ni nini hicho?
7.What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) Athari kwa wanawake au kuhusishwa
katika mradi huu? (JINSIA)  Are women actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wanahusika kikamulifu
katika shughuli, mipango au kufanya maamuzi?  Are women physically doing the activity themselves? Wanawake wenyewe kama wao wanafanya kazi
hizi?  Have you gotten any support from the men? Do you want it? Mmepata usaidi wowote toka kwa wanaume?
Je mnahitaji usaidizi huo?
8.How these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) Unafikiri shughuli hizi zinawezakuwaje za
ufanisi zaidi? (FURSA)________________________________
9.What RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions for this project to make it better in future? Ni mapendekezo gani unayoyatoa
kwa wakati ujao kwa mradi huu kuwa mzuri zaidi?
Kondoa REDD+ ARKFor/ Nursery Activities
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Mafanikio ya shuguli ? (UFANISI)  What new conservation activities are taking place in this area? Ni shuguli gani mpya za uhifadhi wa zinazo
fanyika katika maeneo haya?
 What can you say about it? Je unazungumziaje hizo shuguli za uhifadhi?
 What are some of the benefits of these activities to the community? List some of the actual benefits and beneficiaries?
Je nifaida zipi zinazo pata jamii kutokana na shuguli hizi? Taja baadhi ya faida na
wafaidikaji?
 Has it made any money for you or the group? Je shuguli hizi za uhifadhi zinakupatia pesa wewe au
kikundi chako?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 68
 Other than money, has it made any other difference for you or your group? Mbali na pesa , je shuguli hizi za
uhifadhi zimeleta tofauti kwako au kwenye kikundi chako?
 What difference? Ni utofauti gani?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? Kwa jinsi gani shuguli za utunzaji wa mazingira
ni muhimu kwako / kwa kijiji? (UMUHIMU)  Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? If yes, what difference?
Je, shuguli za uhifadhi wa mazingira zitaleta mabadiliko ya muda mrefu kwako/
kwa kijiji?
3. What is the IMPACT of the project on group members? Je nini matokeo ya mradi wa uhifadhi
mzazingira kwa wanakikundi?
4. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) Je ni changamoto gani
zilizoweza kujitokeza wakati wa utekelezaji wa mradi wakutunza mazingira. (VIKWAZO).  What are some of the problems you have encountered during implementation? Ni baadhi ya matatizo gani mliyo
weza kukutana nayo wakati wa utekerezaji wa mradi wa uhifadhi wa mazingira?
 How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? Je mlitatuaje hizo changamoto na
nikivipi changamoto hizo zinaweza kutatuliwa vizuri Zaidi?
 What would you do differently if the activity continues elsewhere? Ni baadhi ya matatizo gani mliyo weza
kukutana nayo wakati wa utekerezaji wa mradi wa kutunza mazingira?
 Are the community members interested in these activities? If yes why, If not, why not? Je mliweza je kutatua
matatizo hayo, na/au je ni kwanamna gani matatizo hayo yanaweza kutatuliwa
vizuri?
 Je wanajamii wanavutiwa na shuguli za uhifadhi wa mazingira? Kama ndio ni
kwanini? Nakama sio ni kwa nini?
5. How can these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) Kwa jinsi gani mradi wa kuhifadhi mazingira
unaweza kukuwa na kupanuka? (KUKUA).  Is anyone else (other than the benefitting group) becoming interested in the activity? Je kuna mtu mwingine /watu
wengine wanao vufutiwa na shuguli za uhifadhi wa mazingira tuki watoa wana
kikundi?
6. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Bila misaada/ uwezeshwaji
kutoka kwa wafadhiri, je mradi wa uhifadhi wa mazingira unawezaje kuendelea?
(UENDELEVU)  Are you ready to continue with the project at the end of donor support? Mko tayari kuendelea na mradi wa
uhifadhi wa mazingira baada ya kumalizika kwa misaada kutoka kwa wafadhili?
 Will the village continue these activities by itself? If yes, how? If no, why not? Je kijiji kitaendela na shuguli za
uhifadhi wa mazingira? Kama ndio, kivipi? Kama sio, Kwanini?
 What share of the benefits supports the continuing of the group? Je kunakiwango chochote chapesa kilicho
tunzwa kwa ajili ya kuendeleza kikundi?
7. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? If yes, which ones? Je, kuna mambo (vitu) umejifunza
kutokana na mradi wa uhifadhi wa mazingira? Kama ndio, umejifivunza kipi?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 69
8. What has been the involvement of women or impact on them? (GENDER) Ni kwanamna gani wanawake
wame husishwa katika mradi huu wa uhifadhi wa mazingira? Je mradi wa uhifadhi wa
mazingira una matokeo gani kwa wanawake?(JINSIA)  Have women been actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wame husishwa
katika shuguli, upangaji au utoaji wa maamuzi?
 Are women physically doing the activity themselves? Je wanawak
 e wanafanya shuguli za uhifadhi wa mazingira?
9. What RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you make? Ni maoni gani / mapendekezo unayoweza
kutoa ili kuweza kufanikisha mradi kama huu kwa hapo baadae?
Livestock Development
Maendeleo ya Mifugoa
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shughuli za ufanisi? (UFANISI) What are the livestock development activities? Ni shughuli gani za maendeleo ya mifugo katika?
What can you say about it? Unaweza kusema nini kuhusu shughuli izo?
Have they made a difference in the lives of the community members? What?
Je zimeleta tofauti yoyote katika maisha ya jamii? Tofauti zipi hizo?
2. What are now the core elements of activities? (RELEVANCE)
Ni vipengele gani kwa sasa ni vya msingi na muhimu katika shughuli(UMUHIMU) Will these activities make any long-term difference?
Je shughuli hizi zitaleta tofauti yoyote ya muda mrefu kwa?
What difference? Tofauti hizo ni zipi?
How do these core activities satisfy community needs?
Ni kwa jinsi gani shughuli hizi za msingi zinaridhisha mahitaji ya jamii?
3. What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) Je ni changamoto gani
zilionekana wakati wa utekelezaji wa mradi huu( ranchi ya Manyara)? (VIKWAZO)
4. With no AWF support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Je, bila msaada wa AWF shughuli
hizi zinawezakuendelea? (UENDELEVU) What sustainability measures are being thought about? Ni hatua gani za uendelevu
zinazofikiriwa?
5. Are there LESSONS LEARNT ? Je kuna chochote cha kujifunza kutoka katika ranchi? Ni nini
hicho?
6. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) Ni athari gani imekuwa kwa
wanawake au kushirikishwa wanawake?
Are women actively involved in this activity, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wanashiriki katika
shughuli, mipango au kutoa maamuzi?
Are women physically doing the activity themselves? Je, Wanawake wenyewe wanafanya kazi?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 70
7. How these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) Unafikiri shughuli hizi zinawezakuwaje
za ufanisi zaidi? (FURSA)
8. What RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you provide for this project to make it better in future?
Ni mapendekezo yapi unayoyatoa kwa mradi huu kuwa mzuri zaidi kwa wakati ujao?
(Ranchi ya Manyara)
(Kwa ajili ya jamii za Manyara)
10. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shughuli zilizofanikiwa? (UFANISI)  Do you know about activities at Manyara Ranch? Unafahamu shughuli zilizo katika ranchi ya Manyara?  What are its activities? Shughuli hizo ni zipi?  Has Manyara Ranch made a visible difference in this village? If yes, what difference? If no, why do you say so? Je ranchi ya
Manyara imeleta tofauti yoyote katika kijiji hiki? Kama ndiyo tofauti hiyo ni ipi? Kama
siyo kwa nini unasema hivyo?  What is the community relationship with Manyara Ranch? Jamii inauhusiano gani na ranchi ya Manyara?  Does the community get resources from Manyara ranch? What? Jamii inapata raslimali zozote kutoka ranchi
ya Manyara? ________ Ni zipi hizo?  Has the Ranch engaged in “good neighborhood” activities to nearby villages? Je ranchi inafanya shughuli zozote
za ujirani mwema kwa vijiji vilivyo jirani?  Have you noticed any difference of water flow in the Tarangire river? Je umeona tofauti yoyote katika kiasi cha
mtiririko wa maji ya mto Tarangire?  Are there other pastoralist interests that the Ranch should address? Je kuna masilahi mengine ya wafugaji
ambayo ranchi inapaswa kuyashughulikia?
11. How important (to you/ the village) is Manyara ranch? (RELEVANCE) Ranchi ya Manyara inaumuhimu gani
kwako au kwa kijji chako? (UMUHIMU)  What long-term difference will Manyara ranch make to you/the village? Why do you say so? Unafikiri ni tofauti gani ya
muda mrefu ranchi ya Manyara inaweza kufanya kwako au kijijini kwako? Kwa nini
unasema hivyo?  What is the IMPACT of the project on community members? Mradi unaathari (nzuri na mbaya) gani kwa
wanajamii?
12. What challenges does the ranch face? Je ni changamoto gani ranchi inakutana nazo? (VIKWAZO)
 Are there challenges in the relationship between the ranch and the communities? Which?
Kuna changamoto zozote katika uhusianao wa ranchi na jamii? ________Ni zipi hizo?  How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed? Uliwezaje kutatua changamoto hizo?
Au unafikiri zinaweza kutatuliwa kwa namna gani nzuri zaidi?  Are the community members interested in Manyara Ranch? Why/why not? Je wanajamii wanamasilai yoyote kwa
ranchi ya Manyara? Kwanini/Kwanini sivyo?
13. How can Manyara Ranch grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) Je unafikiri ranchi inaweza kukuwa na
kupanuka kwa namna gani? (KUONGEZEKA)
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 71
 Are other nearby villages becoming interested in Manyara Ranch? Kuna vijiji vingine jirani vinamaslahi na
ranchi ya Manyara?  Can the Ranch can expand its activities? Unafikiri ranchi inaweza kutanua shughuli zake?
14. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from the ranch? Which? Kuna chochote cha kujifunza kutoka katika
ranchi? Ni kipi hicho
15. What has been the involvement of women with Manyara Ranch, or the Ranch’s impact on them? (GENDER) Wanawake
wamehusikaje katika ranchi ya Manyara au ranchi ina athari gani kwa
wanawake?(JINSIA)  Are women involved in Manyara Ranch activities Wanawake wamehusishwa katika shughuli za ranchi
ya Manyara?  Are women physically doing any Manyara Ranch activity themselves? Wanawake kama wao wenyewe
wamefanya kazi zozote za ranchi ya Manyara?
16. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for more Manyara Ranch activities? Unapendekezo gani kuhusu
shughuli zaidi za ranchi ya Manyara?
Livestock Development (to Manyara ranch staff)
Maendeleo ya Mifugoa
(Kwa ajili ya wafanyakazi wa ranchi ya Manyara)
17. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Shughuli za ufanisi? (UFANISI)  What are the livestock development activities in Ranch? Ni shughuli gani za maendeleo ya mifugo katika
ranchi?  What can you say about it? Unaweza kusema nini kuhusu shughuli hizo?  What impact do these activities have on Ranch profitability? Shughuli hizi zinaathari/matokeo
gani kwenye faida ya ranchi?  Have they made a difference in the lives of the community members? What difference? Je zimeleta tofauti yoyote katika
maisha ya jamii? Tofauti zipi hizo?
18. What are now the core elements of Ranch activities? (RELEVANCE) Ni vipengele gani kwa sasa ni vya msingi
na muhimu katika shughuli za ranchi ya Manyara? (UMUHIMU)  Will these activities make any long-term difference to the Ranch? Je shughuli hizi zitaleta tofauti yoyote ya
muda mrefu kwa ranchi ya Manyara?  What difference? Tofauti hizo ni zipi?  How do these core activities satisfy community needs? Ni kwa jinsi gani shughuli hizi za msingi zinaridhisha
mahitaji ya jamii?  What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS) Je ni changamoto gani
zilionekana wakati wa utekelezaji wa mradi huu( ranchi ya Manyara)? (VIKWAZO)
19. How should the Ranch grow and expand? (SCALE-UP) Je unafikiri ranchi inaweza kukuwa na kupanuka
kwa namna gani? (KUONGEZEKA)  Is the Ranch making a profit? Je ranchi inapata faida?  If not, when do you think it will? Kama siyo, unafikiri lini itapata?  What are some future Ranch plans? Ranchi ina mipango gan kwa siku zijazo?
 20. With no AWF support, can these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY) Je, bila msaada wa AWF shughuli hizi
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 72
zinawezakuendelea? (UENDELEVU)  What sustainability measures are being thought about? Ni hatua gani za uendelevu zinazofikiriwa?
21. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from the Ranch? Which? Je kuna chochote cha kujifunza kutoka katika
ranchi? Ni nini hicho
22. What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) Ni athari gani imekuwa kwa
wanawake au kushirikishwa wanawake?  Are women actively involved in Ranch activity, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wanashiriki katika
shughuli za ranchi, mipango au kutoa maamuzi?  Are women physically doing Ranch activity themselves? Je, Wanawake wenyewe wanafanya kazi za ranchi?
23. How these activities could be more successful? (OPPORTUNITIES) Unafikiri shughuli hizi zinawezakuwaje
za ufanisi zaidi? (FURSA)
24. What RECOMMENDATIONS/suggestions would you provide for this project to make it better in future? Ni mapendekezo
yapi unayoyatoa kwa mradi huu kuwa mzuri zaidi kwa wakati ujao?
Micro finance or Micro-credit – Mkopo mdogo mdogo
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 73
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) - Shughuli Mafanikio - Ufanisi
Do you know about any micro-finance/ micro-credit activities in the village?  Wajua muradi wowote wa mkopo mdogo mdogo katika hiki kijiji au
sehemu hii?
Has it made any difference for you or the village? If yes, what difference? If no, why not?  Huo muradi wa mkopo mdogo mdogo imeleta tafauti yoyte kwa kijiji
chako? Kama ni ndiyo ebu elezia Zaidi
Is the membership open to both men and women?  Uanachama uko wazi kwa waume na wake?
Does the management share information freely with the member?  Ebu nielezee kama uwongozi hupeana taarifa kwa uwazi kwa wanachama
wa kikundi hiki
If applicable, is there management mixed by men and women ?  Uwongozi wa kikundi hiku uko na wake na waume katika vieo mbali
mbali?
Are records accessible to the members?  Ni kweli kua wanachama waeza pata taarifa za kikundi kwa urahisi?
Where do you save your money, in a bank?  Huwa kikundi kina ekeza hela zake kwa benki?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these activities? (RELEVANCE)
Miradi ya hiki kikundi iko iko na maana kwako wewe ama kwa kijiji?
Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village? If yes, what difference? If no, why not?  Unadthani miradi hii inaweza leta mabadiliko kwa kijiji chako baada ya
wakati mrufu?
Has the project met the needs of the community members?  Ni kweli muradi huu umetimiza mahitaji ya wanakijiji?
3. What challenges were experienced during the implementation of this project? (CONSTRAINTS)  Ni vikwazo vipi mumeshuhudia wakati ambapo mumekua mukitekeleza
muradi huu?
How did you solve the challenges and/or how can they be better addressed?  Mume sulihishisa vipi vikwazo hivi? Uko na maoni mengine vile unaweza
suluhisha vikwazo hivi?
What would you do differently if the micro-finance continues elsewhere?  Ungeweza kubadilisha nini kama huu muradi wa mikopo midogo midogo
ungefanywa kwingine?
Is the village as a whole interested in the micro – credit project?  Ni kweli kuwa watu wote wa kijiji wanatilia maanani maslahi ya muradi
huu?
4. What is the IMPACT of the micro-finance on community members?
Ebu nieelezee athari ya muradi hu wa mikopo midogo midogo kwa
wanakijiji?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 74
5. How should these successes grow and expand? (SCALE-UP)
Ebu nielezee vile mafanikio ya muradi huu yanaeza kupanuliwa?
6. Without outside support, how will these activities continue? (SUSTAINABILITY)
Bila usaidizi kutoka nnjee, muradi huu unaeza kujisimamia?
Is the micro-finance group making a profit?
Kwa wakati huu, huu muradi unatengeza faida?
Can the village continue these activities by itself?  Inawezekana wanakijiji wanaeza endelesha huu muradi wenyewe?
Has the micro-credit group ever had plans to expand and cover new areas?  Muradi huu wa mikopo midogo midogo uko na mpango wa kusamba
zaidi ya sehemu ambayo inahudumia kwa sasa?
Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? If yes, which ones?
7. Ebu nielezee mambo ya kujifunza kutokana na muradi huu?
8. What has been the impact on women – or their involvement? (GENDER)
Ebu nielezee athari ya ginsia haswa wanawake katika muradi huu?
Have women been actively involved in the activity, planning or decision-making?  Ebu nielezee mchangio ambao wanawake wamechangia katika muradi
huu? Ni kweli hao wako na mamlaka kati muradi huu na huweza
kuchangia maamuzi wa kundi hili?
Are women physically doing any of the work themselves?  Ni kweli kuwa kuna kazi wanawake hufanya bila usaidizi katika muradi
huu?
9. What RECOMMENDATIONS would you make for a micro-finance/ micro-credit activities?
Haya la mwisho nipe mapendekezo ambayo ungependa yatiliwe
maanani katika muradi huu?
WOMEN’S ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
(SHUGURI ZA KIUCHUMI ZA WANAWAKE)
1. What kind of economic activity/business are you involved in? Ni shuguli gani za kiuchumi/kibiashara
unazo jiusisha nazo?
 Where do you operate your business? Unafanyia biashara yako wapi?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 75
 Have you received any funding and/or grant in the last two years to develop your business? Je umeshawahi
kupokea msaada wa kifedha kutoka kwa wafadhiri kwaajili ya kukuza
biashara yako katika miaka miwili iliyopita?
 If yes, from whom did you receive the funding/grant? Kama ndio, je ulipokea msaada huo wa
kifedha kutoka kwa nani?
 How much grant/funding did you receive? Je, ulipokea shilling ngapi?
 What did you use the money for? Je ulitumia hizo fedha kufanyia nini?
 Was it adequate for your business? Je msaada huo wakifedha ulikutosheleza kwenye
biashara yako?
2. Have you received any training to develop your skills on managing your business?
If yes what kind of training? If not, why? From which organization? Je ulisha wahi kupata mafunzo ya
kukuza ujuzi wa kusimamia biashara yako?
Kama ndio nia mafunzo ya aina gani? Na kama sio ,ni kwanini?. Ni shirika gani
lilitoa mafunzo hayo?
3. What challenges do you face in conducting your business? Je ni changamotogani unakutana nazo katika
kufanya biashara yako? [Dadisi]  Competition from men? Ushindani kutoka kwa wanaume?
 Lack of capital? Kukosa mtaji wa biashara?
 Inexperience with business practices? Kutokuwa na ujuzi wa kufanya biashra?
4. Is this project important to the community? If yes why do you say so? Or why not? Je mradi huu ni muhimu kwa
jamii ? kama ndio kwanini unasema hivyo? Au kwanini sio?
5. Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, geographic focus,? Je mradi uliwalenga wahusika
walio kusudiwa,kwakiwango na eneo lililo lengwa/lilitakiwa? ( UHALISIA)
6. What is the IMPACT of the women economic intervention in the community? Nini matokeo hasi na chanya ya
wanawake kujikita kwenye mambo ya kiuchumi katika jamii?
7. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? Je kuna vitu/mambo uliyojifunza kutokana na
mradi huu? Je ni vitu/mambo gani?
8. What recommendations would you provide for the programme to make it better in the future? Je ni maoni gani
unayoweza kutoa ilikuweza kuboresha mradi huu uwe bora kwa siku zijazo?
Village _______________________________ Date ________ TAPE start _____________________
Interviewer: ________________________________________ TAPE Finish ____________________
HIV/AIDS
1. Are you aware of an HIV/AIDS support group in this community? Je unafahamu kuhusu vikundi vinavyo
shugulika na mambo yanayo husu ukimwi katika jamii yako?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 76
· Are you a member of the HIV/AIDS support group in this community? · Je wewe ni mwanachama
wa vikundi vinavyo shugulikia mambo yanayo husu UKIMWI katika jamii yako?
· What are the activities of this group? · Je vikundi hivi vina shuguligani?
· Is the community as whole involved in this project? If yes, what is the role of the community? Probe: Monitoring Je kijiji
kizima kina husika katika mradi huu? Kama ndio nini wajibu wa kijiji katika mradi
huu? Dadisi: Ufuatiliaji
2. What is/are the direct benefit(s) of this HIV/AIDS activity in this village? Has it met the needs of the community?
Je nini faida za shuguli za UKIMWI katika kijiji hiki?
Je shuguli hizo zime tatua mahitaji ya jamii?
3. Does the HIV/AIDS support group receive any support? If yes, what? From whom? Je kikundi kinasho shugulika na
UKIMWI kinapokea msaada wowote ule?kama ndio , ni msaada gani? Na unatoka wapi?
4. Has the local NGO has been conducting trainings on HIV/AIDS? Je mashirika yasiyo ya kiserikali/mashirika
ya kijamii huwa yanatoa mafuzo kuhusu ukimwi?
· Are you aware of these trainings? Je unayafahamu hayo mafunzo?
· Did you attend these trainings? Je umeshawahi kuhudhuria mafunzo hayo?
· Do you remember what was talked about? Je unakumbuka kiini cha hayo mafunzo kuhusu
UKIMWI?
5. What is the IMPACT (Both positive and Negative) of this project to the community members? Je nini matokeo hasi na
chanya ya Mradi huu kwa wana jamii?
6. Did the programme target the intended beneficiaries, coverage, and geographic focus? (Relevance) Je mradi uliwalenga
wahusika walikusudiwa,kwa kiwango na eneo lililolengwa / lililotakiwa? (HUALISIA)
7. What challenges are facing this group in the community? Ni changamoto gani zinazo kabiri kikundi hiki
katika jamii?
8. Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Which? Je kuna vitu/mambo mliyo jifunza kutokana na
mradi huu? Je ni mambo/vitu gani?
9. What recommendations would you provide for better management of the programme in the future Je ni
maoni/Mapendekezo gani unayoweza kutoa ilikuweza kuboresha utendaji kazi wa mradi huu
uwe bora kwa siku zijazo?
WMA Development (for WMA Management)
Maendeleo ya Maeneo ya usimamizi wa Wanyamapori
(kwa ajili ya menejimenti ya WMA)
1. Successfully activities? (EFFECTIVINESS) Mafanikio ya kazi? (UFANISI)
What are the major WMA Activities in this group of communities? Ni kazi/shughuli gani kubwa za WMA katika jamii hii
Has it made any difference in the lives of the community members? Je WMA imeonyesha utofauti wowote katika
maisha ya wanajamiii?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 77
What differences?(both positive and negative) ni tofauti gani hizo? ( hasi na chanya)
Is the community involved in WMA management? Je jamii inahusishwa kwenye usimamizi wa WMA?
What are some of the benefits of WMA? Je nini baadhi ya faida za WMA?
1a. WMA and anti poaching WMA na upambanaji wa ujangiri
Who is involved in ant poaching Je ni nani anayehusika na upambanaji wa ujangiri?
how are they selected and with which criteria? Wanachaguliwaje na kwa vigezo vipi?
Do they undergo training on how to do their work? Je hupewa mafunzo ya namna ya kufanya kaz yao?
Do the WMA allocate resources to them to do their work? Je WMA WMA wanatenga rasilimali kwa ajili ya kufanyia kazi?
Does the team work with other WMA and local administration in anti poaching? Je timu hushirikiana na WMA zingine na uongozi
wa jamii katika kupambana na ujangiri?
1b. WMA and land use planning WMA na mpango ya matumizi ya ardhi.
What have been WMA effort in land use planning? Je ni zipi zimekua juhudi za WMA katika mpango wa
matumizi
How successful have they been Je ni kwa kiasi gani zimeweza kufanikiwa?
Is land use planning important from the village perspectives? Je kwa mtazamo wa kijiji mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi ni
muhimu?
Have you seen any benefits from LUP promoted? what are they? Je umeona faida yoyote tangu mpango wa
matumizi bora ya ardhi kuanzishwa?na ni faida zipi hizo?
Does LUP represent a long term change (SUSTAINABILITY) in community thinking? Je mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi
utaleta mabadiliko ya mda mrefu kwa fikra za wana jamii?
Are there laws and regulations that govern land use?if yes what? Je kuna sheria na kanuni ambazo husimamia matumizi
bora ya ardhi? Kama ndio ni zipi?
Are they effective regulations? Je kanuni hizo ni za kifanisi?
What enforcement mechanism exist in case of non compliance in land use? Je kuna njia gani hutumika kisheria kwa wale
wasiofuata sheria na kanuni za matumizi bora ya ardhi
1c. WMA and wildlife conflicts WMA na migogoro ya wanyama pori
What have been WMA efforts in wildlife conflict mitigation? Ni juhudi zipi ambazo WMA wameonyesha kukabiliana na
migogoro ya wanyama pori?
How successful have these efforts been? Je ni kwa kiasi gani juhudi hizo zimeweza kufanikiwa?
How important are they in the mind of your decision making? Katika maamuzi yako je juhudi hizo zina umuhimu kwa
kiasi gani?
How long term (sustainable) are these changes in village thinking? Unadhani mabadiliko haya kwa mtazamo wa wanakijiji ni
endelevu kwa kiasi gani?
1d. How can the WMA be managed better? Ni kwa namna gani WMA inaweza kusimamiwa vizuri zaidi?
How regularly do you attend WMA meetings and what type of meetings are called?
Ni mara ngapi unahudhuria mikutano/vikao vya WMA, na vikao hivyo huitwaje?
Do you know the laws that govern WMA? If yes, which ones? Je unafahamu sheria zinazoingoza WMA? Kama ndio ni
sheria zipi hizo?
Does WMA management share information? If yes, how and what information? Je mnawashirikisha wanajamii katika kuwapa
taarifa? Kama ndio ni taarifa zipi hizo?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 78
Does your WMA have a functioning office? Je WMA wana ofisi ya kufanyia kazi?
1e. Have household incomes improved as a result of WMA activities? Je matokeo/shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA
zimeweza kuongeza kipato katika kaya?
What income generating activities have taken place?_ Ni shughuli gani za kujipatia kipato ambazo zinafanywa?
Have village expectations regarding revenue distribution been satisfied? Je matarajio ya kijiji kuhusu ugawanywaji wa
mapato ni mzuri/wa kuridhisha?
2. How important (to you/ the village) are these WMA activities? Je kazi zinazofanywa na WMA zina umuhimu gani
kwako/ kwa kijiji? (umuhimu)
Will these activities make any long-term difference to you or the village?_Je shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA zinaweza
kuleta utofauti wa muda mrefu kwako au kijiji?
What difference, do you think? Kama ndio ni tofauti zipi hizo?
Has the WMA met the needs of the community? List some. Je WMA wameweza kukidhi mahitaji ya wanakijiji? Eleza
baadhi
What challenges were seen during the implementation of this WMA? (CONSTRAINTS Je ni changamoto gani ambazo
zilijitokeza katika utekekelezaji wa WMA (VIKWAZO)
What are the challenges WMA faces in meeting the needs of the community? Je ni changamoto gani ambazo WMA
wanazipata katika kutimiza mahitajiya wanajamii?
Are community members interested in WMA activities? If yes why? If no, why not?
Je wanajamii wana masilahi na kazi/shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA?kama ndio kwanini kama
hapana kwa nini hapana?
What is role of the community in the WMA? Je nini wajibu za wanajamii katika WMA.
What is the IMPACT of the WMA on community members? Je ni nini athari ya WMA kwa wanajamii? (hasi,chanya)?
Are you involved or benefitting from the WMA? Je unashirikishwa au kunufaika na WMA?
What would you do differently if the WMA continues elsewhere? Ni nini utafanya cha tofauti endapo WMA ingeendelea
sehemu nyingine?
3. Can WMA run without external financial support? (SUSTAINABILITY) Je WMA inaweza kujiendesha yenyewe bila
kutegemea msaada wa kifedha kutoka nje?( ENDELEVU)
What sustainability measures are in place to ensure that the WMA continues without support from outside donors? Je kuna hatua gani
ambazo zimechukuliwa ili kuhakikisha WMA inaendelea bila msaada kutoka kwa wafadhili
Are there LESSONS LEARNT from this project? Je kuna jambo(vitu) vyovyote ulilojifunza kutokana na mradi huu?
What has worked really well (strengths)? Je ni nini kimefanyika vizuri katika mradi huu?
And what has not worked really well? (weaknesses) Na je ni nini hakikwenda vizuri kwenye mradi huu?
What has been the impact on – or involvement of—women? (GENDER) Ni nini athari kwa
wanawake,wamehusishwa?(jinsia)
Are women actively involved in the WMA, planning or decision-making? Je wanawake wanashirikishwa kikamilifu katika
kupanga/ kufanya maamuzi juu ya WMA
Are women physically doing the activity themselves? Je wanawake wanashiriki moja kwa moja katika kufanya kazi
peke yao?
What RECOMMENDATIONS would you provide for the WMA to make it better in future?
Ni nini maoni yako juu ya WMA ili kuwa bora baadae
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 79
hat are the sources of your livelihood directly linked to conservation activities? Ni nini chanzo cha mapato yako
kinachotokana na shughili zinazohusika na uhifaadhi?
What are some of the conservation enterprises initiated by AWF/USAID in this community? Ni biashara gani za
uhifadhi zilizoanzishwa na USAID/AWF katika jamii hii
WMA Development (For the community)
1. Successful activities? (EFFECTIVENESS) Ufanisi katika kazi
Are you aware of the WMA Activities in this village? Je unafahamu shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA hapa
kijijini?
What can you say about it? Je unazizungumziaje?
Has it made any other difference in the lives of the community members? Je kazi hizi zimeleta utofauti katika maisha ya
wanajamii?
What difference? (both positive and negative) Je ni tofauti zipi hizo? (chanya na hasi)
Are all relevant stakeholders in the community involved in WMA management? Je wadau wote wa muhimu katika jamii
wanashirikishwa katika usimamizi wa WMA?
What are some of the benefits of WMA to you as a community member? Je nini faida za WMA kwako kama
mwanajamii?
How are the benefits shared? Ni kwa jinsi gani faida zinagawanywa?
1a. WMA and anti-poaching WMA na upambanaji wa ujangiri
Who is involved in anti-poaching at the WMA? Ni nani anashirikishwa katika kupambana na ujangiri katika
WMA?
Does the WMA allocate resources for anti-poaching? Je WMA wanatenga rasilimali kwa ajili ya kupambana na
ujangili?
Does the anti poaching team work with other WMAs and local administration in anti poaching je timu kazi ya kupambana na
ujangili inafanya kazi pamoja (ikishirikiana ) na WMA nyingine na uongozi wa maeneo hayo
katika kupambana na ujangili?
Are the anti poaching activities effective? why/why not Je shughuli za kupambana na ujangili zinafanyika
kiufanisi?kwa nini / kwa nini siyo
1b. WMA na mipango nya matumizi ya ardhi
What have been WMA efforts in LUP? Je ni juhudi zipi ambazo WMA wameonyesha katika matumizi bora
ya ardhi?
How successful have they been? Je ni kwa kiasi gani imeweza kufanikiwa?
How important are they in the mind of WMA village decision making? Je kwa mtazamo wa hapa kijijini mpango wa
matumizi bora ya ardhi ni muhimu?
Is there a relationship between the WMA and land use planning? Je kuna uhusiano wowote kati ya WMA na mpango
wa matumizi bora ya ardhi?
Is this a long term change (sustainability)in village thinking? Je mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi ni endelevu kwa
mtazamo wa kijijini?
1c. WMA na migogoro ya wanyama pori
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 80
What have been WMA efforts in wildlife conflict mitigation Ni juhudi zipi ambazo WMA wameonyesha/wamekua
wakizifanya katika kukabiliana na migogoro ya wanyama pori?
How successfully have these efforts been? Je ni kwa kiasi gani juhudi hizo zimeweza kufanikiwa?
How important are they in the mind of WMA village decision making? Kwa mtazamo wa wanakijiji je juhudi hizo zina
umuhimu kwa kiasi gani?
How long term (sustainable ) are these changes of village thinking? Unadhani mabadiliko haya kijijini ni endelevu kwa
kiasi gani?
1d. How can the WMAbe managed better? Ni kwa jinsi gani WMA inaweza kusimamiwa vizuri?
How regularly do you attend WMA meetings and what type of meeting s are called? Ni mara ngapi unahudhuria
mikutano/vikao vya WMA ,na vikao hivyo huitwaje?
Are there laws that govern WMA?if yes,which ones? Je kuna sheria zinazoingoza WMA? Kama ndio ni sheria zipi
hizo?
Does the management share information? Je viongozi wa WMA wanawashirikisha katika kuwapa taarifa?
What kind of meeting does the WMA have? Je ni vikao vya namna gani ambavyo WMA wanavyo?
Have you ever seen the WMA records? Je umeshawahi kuona kumbukumbu za vikao vya WMA
1e. Have household income improved as a result of the WMA? Je matokeo/shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA
zimeweza kuongeza kipato katika kaya
What income generating activities have taken place? Ni shughuli gani za kujipatia kipato ambazo zinafanywa?
Have village expectations regarding revenue distribution been satisfied? Je matarajio ya kijiji kuhusu ugawanywaji wa
mapato ni mzuri/wa kuridhisha?
Are there written procedures for distribution of revenues? Je kuna taratibu zozote zilizoandikwa kwa ajili ya
ugawanywaji wa mapato?
How important (to you/the village)are these WMA activities? (RELEVANCE)) Je ni kwa kiasi gani kazi zinazofanywa na
WMA zina umuhimu kwako na kwa kijiji? (umuhimu)
Will these activities make any long term difference to you or the village? Je shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA zinaweza
kuleta utofauti wa muda mrefu kwako au kijiji?
What differences,do you think they can make? Ni tofauti zipi unadhani WMA inaweza kuleta?
What is the impact of WMA on community members? Ni nini manufaa ya WMA kwa wanakijiji?
3.What challenges were seen during the implementation of this project?(CONSTRAINTS) Je ni changamoto gani ambazo
zilijitokeza katika utekekelezaji wa mradi huu (VIKWAZO)
What are the challenges WMA faces in meeting the needs of the member? Je ni changamoto gani ambazo WMA
wanazipata katika kufikisha mahitaji kwa jamii?
Ni njia gani nzuri ambayo inaweza kutatua matatizo hayo?
What would you do differently if the WMA continues else where? Ni nini ungefanya cha tofauti endapo WMA
ingeendelea sehemu nyingine?
Are community members interested in these activities?if yes why if no why not? Je wanajamii wana maslahi na
kazi/shughuli zinazofanywa na WMA?kama ndio kwanini kama hapana kwa nini hapana?
Are you involved or benefiting from the WMA? Je unashiriki au kunufaika na WMA?
Was the community involved in monitoring? In what role? Je jamii ilihusika katika ufuatiliaji wa WMA? Kwa
kiwango gani?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 81
Without outside support,can the WMA continue?(SUSTAINABILITY) Je WMA inaweza kuendelea Bila msaada kutoka
kwa wafadhili?
Can WMA run without external support? Je WMA inaweza kuendelea bila msada kutoka kwa wafadhili?
What support is needed to make it self sustaining and for how long? Na ni msaada wa namna/aina gani unaohitajika ili
WMA iweze kujitosheleza na kwa mda gani?
What sustaibility measures have the community put in place to ensure that the WMA continues without support from the NGOs? Ni hatua
gani ambazo wanajamii wameziweka ili kuhakikisha WMA inaendelea bila msaada kutoka
kwenye asasi zisizokua za kiserikali?
What are the lessons learnt from this project? Je umejifunza nini kutokana na mradi huu?
What has worked really well(strengths) Je ni nini kilienda vizuri?
And what has not worked really well?(weakness) Na je ni nini hakikuenda vizuri?
What has the impact on- or involvement of women?(GENDER) Ni nini matokeo juu ya kushirikishwa kwa
wanawake (jinsia)
Are women actively involved in the WMA planning or decion making? Je wanawake wanashirikishwa kikamilifu katika
kupanga/ kufanya maamuzi juu ya WMA
Are women physically doing the activities themselves? Je wanawake wanashiriki moja kwa moja katika kufanya
kazi peke yao?
What recommendations would you provide for the WMA to make it better in future Ni nini maoni yako juu ya WMA
ili kuwa bora baadae
4. MINI SURVEY (SWAHILI Translation)
MINI –SURVEY
Mkoa Jina la mohoji
wilaya Tarehe
kijiji Namba ya Dodoso
INTRODUCTION Good morning Sir/Madam. My name is .............................. We are currently conducting an evaluation on behalf of USAID on
Scaling Up Conservation and Livelihoods Efforts in Northern Tanzania (SCALE-TZ) Project .Your views are very important and we would appreciate
if you could spend some time to help us with our research. I would like to assure you that whatever we will discuss today here today will be kept
confidential and will only be used for reporting.
UTAMBULISHO
HABARI YA HASUBUHI/MCHANA. NAITWA NATOKEA (DTS ) ______________.KWA
SASA TUNAFANYA TASIMINI KWA NIABA YA USAID(WATU WA MAREKANI) JUU
YA MRADI WA KUKUZA UTUNZAJI WA MAZINGIRA NA JUUDI ZAKUBORESHA
MAISHA YA WATU KASIKAZINI MWATANZANIA. Maoni yako ni muhimu na tutashukuru
kama utatumia muda wako kutusaidia katika utafiti wetu. Ningependa kukuakikishia kuwa yote
tutakayo jadili hapa leo yatakuwa siri na yatajumuhishwa na maoni ya watu wengine kwa ajiri ya
kuandaa taarifa.
Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Sifa za kimaumbile ya kijamii ya muhojiwa
1. Gender
Mwanamke How old are you?
Mwanaume
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 82
2. Marital status
Ameoa/ameolewa Mtaraka Mjane /Mgane
Haja olewa/ haja oa wametengana
3. What is your highest level of education?
Never completed primary school Aja maliza shule ya msingi
Primary school Ana elimu ya shule ya msingi
Never completed secondary school Aja maliza sekondari
d) kidato cha nne
A level Kidato cha sita
University degree or higher Elimu ya chuo kikuu/elimu ya juu
4. WMA Development MAENEO YA USIMAMIZI WA WANYAMA PORI
Does the WMA function in this area? Yes ______ No ______ Don’t know _
Je WMA inafanyakazi eneo hili? Ndio ______ Hapana ______ Sijui ______
(Kwa sehemu ambapo hakuna WMA unaruka kipengele hiki)
(a) What WMA organization activities are going on?
Je nishuguli gani za shirika la WMA bado zinaendelea? (Weka tiki)k)
a. Land use planning
Upangaji wa matumizi ya ardhi.
g. Regular anti-poaching patrols Ukaguzi wa kupambana
na majangiri mara kwamara.
b. Preparation of Resource Management Zone Plan (RZMP)
Uandaaji mpango wa usimamizi wa rasili
kanda.
h. Arrest of poachers Kuwa kamata Majangiri.
c. Preparation of By-laws Kuandaa sheria
ndogondogo.
i. Regular meeting of CBO Kufanya vikao mara kwa mara
na mashirika ya kijamii ya eneo husika.
d. Election of CBO leaders Uchaguzi wa viongozi wa
mashirika ya kijamii ya eneo husika.
j. Awarded User Rights by GoT Kuwapongeza watumiaji
wa haki kwa Serikali ya Tanzania.
e. Registration with the Government Usajili pamoja na
Serikali
k. Signing of agreements with investors kuweka Mikataba na
wawekezaji.
f. Establishment of Village Scouts cadre
Uanzishaji wa vikundi vya Scout wa kijiji
l Distribution of revenue to you or your village by the WMA
kugawanya mapato kwako au kwa kijiji chako
kutoka kwa WMA
m. Other? Nyinginezo?
5. (b)Are there Wildlife Management Activities that have been or are on-going in this village? Yes No Don’t know (Filter/ skip)
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 83
Je shuguli za usimamizi wa Wanyamapori zilizokuwepo au zimekuwa zikiendela katika hiki
kijiji? Ndio______ Hapana ______ Sijui ______
(kama swali la mchujo limejibiwa HAPANA , Ruka sehemu hii)
5 (c) If yes, what activities have been supported or are on-going? (tick)
Kama ni ndio, je ni shuguli gani silizo wai kupewa misaada au zinazo endelea?
a. Anti-poaching Kupambana na Ujangiri e. Wildlife conservation Uhifadhi wa Wanyamapori
b. Livelihood activities Shuguliza kima isha za
kujiingizia kipato.
f. Plant species conservation Uhifadhi wa aina ya mimea
c. Community projects Miradi ya jamii g. Tree planting Upandaji wa Miti
d. Human-wildlife conflict reduction Kupunguza
Migogoro kati ya Binadamu na Wanyama
pori.
h. Terracing. Matuta
l. Other (specify) Nyinginezo
5 (d) What is the benefit of WMA activities to the community members? (tick)
Faida za shuguli za WMA kwa wanajamii ni zipi? (weka tiki)
a. Revenue sharing Kugawana Mapato d. Preservation of culture Utunzaji wa
Utamaduni
b. Training Mafunzo/semina e. Wildlife conservation Uhifadhi wa wanyama
pori
c. Promotion of tourism Kukuza Utarii f. Other? nyinginezo
5 (e) What challenges is the WMA facing in this community?
Je WMA wanapata changamoto gani katika jamii?
a.
b.
5 (f) How can WMA approach be better? Kivipi mbinu hizi za WMA zinaweza kuboreshwa?
a.
b.
6. Anti-poaching Kupambana na Ujangiri
6 (a) Do anti-poaching activities go on in this area? Yes No Don’t know (Filter skips)
Je shuguli za kupambana na ujangiri zipo eneo hili? Ndio__ Hapana __ Sijui __
(kama swali la mchujo limejibiwa HAPANA, ruka sehemu hii)
6(b) What anti-poaching activities have been undertaken in this village? Je nishuguri gani za kupambana na ujangiri
zimekuwa zikifanyika katika kijiji hiki?
Employment provision to the local communities as game scouts
Kuwaajili wanajamii kama Scouts
Special anti-poaching patrol units established in the community
Kuanzisha vikosi vya doria mahalumu ya
kupambana na ujangiri kaitika jamii.
Rewarding informants Kuwapongeza watu
wanaotoa taarifa
Training on bio diversity conservation Mafunzo juu
ya kuhifadhi wa viumbe hai mbalimbali.
(biyo anuai)
Posters/ T-shirts given to the villagers as reward for reporting Wildlife monitoring Kufuatilia wanyama pori.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 84
poaching Kuwapongeza wanakijiji wanaotoa
taharifa za ujangiri kwa kuwapa Mabango/
flana
Other (specify) Nyinginezo (Fafanua)
6 (c) What are the challenges facing anti-poaching efforts in this village? Juhudi za kupambana na Ujangiri zina
kunakutana na changamoto gani katika Kijiji?
a.
b.
6. (d) What do you think can be done to promote anti-poaching efforts in this village? Nini kifanyike ili kuweza kukuza
juhudi za kupambana na Ujangiri katika kijiji?
a.
b.
7. Women Economic Activities/Income generating activities/Livelihoods Shuguli za kiuchumi za wanawake / shuguli za
kujiingizia kipato / shuguliza kuboresha maisha.
Are there women’s economic activities in this area? Yes ___ No ___ Don’t know ____ (Filter skips)
Kunashuguli za kiuchumi za Wanawake katika eneo hili? Ndio ___ Hapana ___ Sijui ____
(kama swali la mchujo limejibiwa HAPANA au sijui, ruka sehemu hiki)
7 (a) What is your source of livelihood? Chanzo chako cha kipato nikipi? (weka tiki)
a) Livestock keeping/business Ufugaji/Biashara f) Charcoal/Firewood production kuuza Mkaa/kuuza
kuni
b) Agriculture Kilimo g) Income Generating Activities shuguli za kujiingizia
kipato
Business Biashara(nyinginezo) h) Daily labor kazi za kila siku
d) Petty trade Biashara ndogo ndogo i) Tourism Utarii
e) Employment Muajiriwa i) Nyinginezo zitaje
7 (b) What challenges does your business and/or economic activity you are involved in face? Nichangamoto gani unakutana
nazo katika biashara yako/ shuguli zako za kiuchumi?
Market soko Lack of funding kukosekana kwa mitaji.
Transport Usafiri Competition from traders. Ushindani kutoka kwa
wafanya biashara wengine
Poor weather conditions hali mbaya ya Ewa Nyinginezo
7 (c) What can be done to make your business better?
Ni vitu gani vifanyike ilikuweza kuboresha biashara yako?
a.
b.
8. Micro finance or Micro-credit VIKUNDI VIDOGO VYA KIFEDHA/ MIKOPO
Are micro-credit/ micro-finance activities in this area? Yes __ No __ Don’t know (Filter skips)
Je kuna vikundi vidogo vinavyo toa huduma za mikopo/fedha katika eneo hili?
Ndio__Hapana_____Sijui____ (kama swali hili likijibiwa HAPANA ruka sehemu hii )
8 (a) Have you or your family received credit in the last two years? Yes No From whom? Gvmnt / NGO /Friend / Relative/ Other
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 85
Je wewe au familia yako imepokea mkopo katika miaka miwili iliyopita? Ndio_____
Hapana____ Kama Ndio, Nikutoka Kwa Nani?Serikali_______Mashirika yasio ya
kiserikali_______Marafiki________Ndugu_______Wengineo
8 (b) If yes, how much money did you receive? Kama ndio, Je Ulipata shilingi ngapi?
Tsh.
Chini ya 50,000
b. 50,001 – 150,000
d. 150,001 – 300,000
f. Zaidi ya 300,000
8 (c) For what purpose did you spend the money on? (tick) Ulitumia hizo pesa kufanyia shuguligani?
Buy food for my family Kununua chakula kwa ajili
ya familia
Buy supplies for existing business Kununua vifaa kwa ajili ya
kuendeleza biashara unayofanya
Buy non-food items for the home Kununu mahitaji
mengine ya nyumbani
Start a new business Kuanzisha biashara Mpya.
Improve my house Kuboresha Nyumba yangu Buy supplies for livestock Kunulia vifaa vinavyotumika
katika ufugaji
Pay school fees for children Kuwalipia watoto ada
za shule
Buy inputs for agricultural production Kununulia pembejeo za
kilimo.
Nyinginezo
8 (d) What were the benefits of participating in the micro-credit programme? Je nini faida za kushiliki katika vikundi
Vinavyo jiusisha na Mikopo/ kifedha mfano. (vikoba)
9. Kondoa REDD/ ARKFor and Women’s nursery KONDOA REDD/ARKF or VIKUNDI VYA
UPANDAJI MITI WA WANAWAKE
Are there REDD/ ARKFor or women’s nursery activities here? Yes __ No _ Don’t know _(filter skips)
Did you participate? Yes _____ No _______
Je kunashuguli za Utunzaji wa mazingira zinzofanya na wanawake kwa kupanda miti katika
eneo hili? Ndio______Hapana_______Sijui___________
9.(a) What were the activities?
Je nini shuguli za vikundi hivyo vya mazingira vya Wanawake?
Agroforestry upandaji wa Miti
nursery and seedling planting kuanzisha vitaru vya
miti
conservation shuguli za utunzaji wa mazingira
carbon offset kupunguza gesi mkaa
other? nyinginezo
9. (b) If yes what were the benefits of participating in the program?
Kama ndio, Je nini faida za kushilika katika mradi huu?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 86
9 (c) Do any of these help improve your income? Yes ________ No ________
Je kunashuguli inayo saidia kuboresha kipato chako? Ndio_____ Hapana_____
9. (d) If you answered yes to 9.c, what did you spend the money you earned from these activities on? Kama ndo , je unatumia
pesa unazopata kutoka kwenye shuguli za utunzaji wa mazingira kufanyia nini?
Buy food for my family Kununu mahitaji mengine
ya nyumbani
Buy supplies for existing business kununua vifaa kwa ajili ya
kuendeleza biashara unayofanya
Buy non-food items for the home Kununu mahitaji
mengine ya nyumbani
Start a new business kuanzisha biashara Mpya.
Improve my house Kuboresha Nyumba yangu Buy supplies for livestock Kunulia vifaa vinavyotumika
katika ufugaji
Pay school fees for children kuwalipia watoto ada ya
shule
Buy inputs for ag. production kununulia pembejeo za
kililmo
NYinginezo
9 (e) Apart from the economic gain, what are other advantages you have gained from your participation in REDD+ or Women? Tofauti na
faida za kiuchumi je ni faida zipi ulizo pata kutokana na miradi hii?
a.
b.
c.
9 (f) What can be done to make this REDD+ or Women’s nursery project better? Je nini unafikili kinaweza kufanyika
ilikuweza kuboresha miradi hii ya mazingira kwa siku za usoni?
a.
b.
FILTER: Only in the Manyara Ranch area: KWA AJILI YA RANCHI YA MANYARA PEKEE
10. Manyara Ranch (also to be combined with Livestock questionnaire)
Ranch ya Manyara (pia itajumuhishwa na dodoso ya Ufugaji)
10 (a)Did you participate in Manyara ranch activities or are you employed by Manyara ranch Je umeshiliki katika shuguli za
Ranchi ya Manyara au Umeajiriwa na Ranchi Y Manyara?
Participate nimeshiriki Employed nimeajiriwa
Ndio
Hapana
10 (b) What were the benefits of participating? Nini faida za kushiliki katika shuguli za Ranch?
a.
b.
c.
10 (c) Do ranch activities help improve your income? Yes _____ No ______
Je shuguli za Ranchi zime inua kipato chako? Ndio_____ Hapana_______
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 87
10 (d)) If yes, what did you spend money you earned from Manyara Ranch on? Kama ndio, Je ulitumia pesa ulizo pata
Kutoka Ranchi Ya Manyara kufanyia Nini? ( weka Vema)
Buy food for my family kununulia chakula Buy supplies for my business kununua vifaa kwa ajili ya
kuendeleza biashara unayofanya
Buy non-food items for the home kununulia
mahitaji memngine ya nyumbani
Start a new business kuanznisha biashara mpya
Improve my house kuboreshea nyumba yangu Buy supplies for livestock kununulia vifaa kwa ajiliya
ufugaji
Pay school fees for children kulipia watoto ada za
shule .
Buy inputs ag. Production kununulia pembejeo za
kilimo
Other: (yinginezo)
10 (e) Apart from economic gain, other advantages you have gained from your participation in Manyara Ranch activities? .Mbali na faida
za kiuchumi, je nini faida zingine ulizo pata kutokana na kushiriki katika shuguli za Ranchi
ya Manyara?
a.
b.
10 (f) What do you think can be done to make Manyara Ranch better in future? Ni Nini kifanyike ili kuweza kuboresha
Ranchi ya Manyara iwe bora kwa siku za baadae?
a.
b.
11. Livestock Development Maendeleo ya Mifugo
Did you participate in livestock development activities? Yes ____ No ____ (filter skips)
Umeshiriki katika shuguli zozote za maendeleo ya mifugo? Ndiyo___ Hapana___
(Kama jibu la swali la mchujo ni “hapana” sehemu hii irukwe)
11 (a) If yes what were the activities of the program you participated in?
Ikiwa ni ndiyo ni shughuli gani katika program ulizishiriki?
a. Cattle fattening Unenepeshaji ng’ombe
b. Improved veterinary Uboreshaji huduma za matibabu ya mifugo
c. Marketing Kutafuta masoko
d. Improved pasture Uboreshaji wa marisho
e. Improved breeding Uboreshaji wa uzalishaji
f. Meat processing Usindikaji wa nyama
g. Other? Nyingine?
11 (b) If yes what were the benefits of participating in the program? Ikiwa ndiyo ni faida zipi umepata za kushiriki
katika programuza
11 (c) Does Livestock improvement help improve your income? Yes ______ No _____
Uboreshaji wa mifugo umeboresha kipato chako? Ndiyo ______ Hapana _____
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 88
11 (d) If yes, what did you spend the Livestock development money on?
(d) Ikiwa ndiyo ulitumiaje pesa uliyopata kutokana na uendelezaji wa mifugo?
Buy food for my family kununulia chakula Buy supplies for my business kununua vifaa kwa ajili ya
kuendeleza biashara unayofanya
Buy non-food items for the home kununulia
mahitaji memngine ya nyumbani
Start a new business kuanznisha biashara mpya
Improve my house kuboreshea nyumba yangu Buy supplies for livestock kununulia vifaa kwa ajiliya
ufugaji
Pay school fees for children kulipia watoto ada za
shule .
Buy inputs ag. Production kununulia pembejeo za
kilimo
Other: (yinginezo)
11 (e) What are other advantages you have gained from your participation in livestock project? Mbali na faida za kiuchumi,
kuna faida gani nyingine umepata kutokana na mradi wa mifugo?
a.
b.
11 (f) What do you think can be done to make this Livestock project better in future?
Unafikiri nini kifanyike ili kuboresha mradi huu zaidi kwa wakati ujaoe?
a.
b.
12. Cash for Work programme Programu ya pesa kutokana na kazi
FILTER: Did you participate in a Cash-for-Work (CfW) in this village Yes ____ No _____ (Filter skips)
CHUJA: Je ulishiriki katika Programu ya pesa kutokana na kazi katika kijiji hiki Ndiyo____
Hapana ____ (Kama jibu la swali la mchujo ni “hapana” sehemu hii irukwe)
12. (a) What was the CfW project? Programu ya pesa kutokana na kazi ilikuwa ni nini? _________________________________________________________
12. (b) If yes what were the benefits of participating in the program?
Ikiwa ni ndiyo, ni ipi faida ya kushiriki katika program hii?
a.
b.
c.
12 (c) Did Cash for Work help you in supplementing your income? Yes ____ No _____
(c) Je mradi wa programu ya pesa kutokana na kazi uliongeza kipato chako? Ndiyo ____
Hapana _____
12. (d) What did you spend the money you earned from the Cash for Work programme on?
Ulitumiaje pesa ulizopata katika mradi wa pesa kutokana na kazi? (tiki)
Buy food for my family kununulia chakula Buy supplies for my business kununua vifaa kwa ajili ya
kuendeleza biashara unayofanya
Buy non-food items for the home kununulia Start a new business kuanznisha biashara mpya
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 89
mahitaji memngine ya nyumbani
Improve my house kuboreshea nyumba yangu Buy supplies for livestock kununulia vifaa kwa ajiliya
ufugaji
Pay school fees for children kulipia watoto ada za
shule .
Buy inputs ag. Production kununulia pembejeo za
kilimo
Other: (yinginezo)
12 (e) Apart from the economic gain, what are other advantages you have gained from your participation in the Cash for Work project? Mbali
na faida za kiuchumi, kuna faida gani nyingine umepata kutokana na mradi wa pesa
kutokana na kazi?
a.
b.
13. Gender Jinsia
13. Do women participate in SCALE activities? Yes ____ No _____ Don’t know.___
Je wanawake wanashiriki katika shughuli za mradi wa SCALE?
Ndiyo ____ Hapana _____ Sijui___
13. (b) If yes, what activities are women involved in?
Ikiwa ndiyo ni shughuli gani anawake wanashiriki? (tiki)
a. Income Generating Activities
Shughuli za kuzalisha kipato
WMA management
Usimamizi wa WMA
b. Anti-poaching
Kuzuia ujangili
Cash-generating activities
Shughuli za kujipatia pesa
other conservation activities
Shughuli nyingine za uhifadhi
HIV/AIDS
Ukimwi
Nursery management
Usimamizi wa kitalu cha miti
Other (specify)
Nyingine: bainisha
13 (c) If yes what were the benefits of participating in the program? Ikiwa ndiyo ni faida zipi umepata za kushiriki
katika programuza
13 (d) Apart from economic gain, other advantages you have gained from your participation in these activities? .Mbali na faida za
kiuchumi, je nini faida zingine ulizo pata kutokana na kushiriki katika shuguli?
a.
b.
14. HIV/AIDS/ UKIMWI
14. (a). Is there a HIV/AIDS intervention programme in this village? Yes No _ Don’t Know
Je kunashuguli zozote za vikundi vya ukimwi katika kijiji hiki?
Ndio_____ Hapana__ Sijui______
14. (b). If yes, in the question above, what HIV/AIDS intervention programme is on-going or has been undertaken in this village Kama ndio
Je ni shuguli gani za UKIMWI zinzoendelea katika kiji hiki?
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 90
a. HIV/AIDS awareness or training mafunzo /semina za UKIMWI
b. Income Generating Activities shuguli za kujiingizia kipato
c. Other (specify) nyinginezo
14. (c) What is the importance of the HIV programme in this village?
Je shuguli za UKIMWI zina faida gani katika kijiji hiki?
a.
b.
c.
15. Knowledge Skill Transfer Kuenea kwa ujuzi
15 (a) Have you/your family members attended any training since the SCALE project began? Yes __No _ Don’t Know _
Je wewew au familia yako mmesha wahi kuuzuria semina au mafunzo ya UKIMWI tangu
kuanzishwa kwa Mradi wa kuuza shuguli za vikundi ya UKIMWI.
Ndio_____Hapana_____Sijui____
15(b) What type of training did you/your family get?
Ni aina gani ya Mafunzo ambayo wewe na familia yako mliweza kupata?
Livestock/agriculture Ufugaji/kilimo HIV/AIDS UKIMWI
Business management plans
Jinsi ya kusimamia mipango ya Biashara Other (specify) Nyinginezo
Conservation enterprises vikundi vya uhifadhi wa
mazingira
16. What has changed in your family since you became involved in the SCALE programme?
Je ni mabadiliko gani yaliyo tokea tangu familia yako kuanza kujihusisha na shuguli za
mradi wa kukuza, uhifadhi, vikundi vya UKIMWI,na utunzaji wa mazingira kwa Ujumla.
TICK
Change in the number of meals taken? Kuongezeka idadi ya milo
Change in the type of food eaten? Kubadilisha aina ya chakula
Change in the production of food crops? Kuongezeka kwa uzalishaji wa mazao.
Change in food consumption (quality/quantity). Mabadiliko katika ulaji wa chakula (
wingi/ubora)
Change in the amount of money you spend on meat, vegetables, fruit etc. kupungua kwa kwa kiwango
cha fedha zinazo tumika kwa ajili ya kununu nyama, mboga na matunda.
Change for money spent on education, health clothing, and nashelter? kupungua galama za fedha
zinazo tumika kwa ajili ya elimu,afya, mavazi na makazi?
Change for aid received? Mabadiliko ya upekeaji wa misaada ya wafadhili
Change in food security status from 2 years ago. Kubadilika kwa hali ya chakula kutoka miaka
miaka 2
Conservation activities in the village shuguli za utunzaji wa mazingira katika vijiji
Other nyinginezo
16. (a). If yes to question above, what is the estimated average annual total household income?
Kama ndiuo kwa swali la juu, kadiri pato la kaya kwa mwaka?
Tsh.
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 91
a. chini ya 50,000
b. 50,001 – 100,000
c. 100,001 – 150,000
d. 150,001 – 200,000
e. zaidi ya 200,000
ASANTE SANA KWA KUSHILIKI
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 92
5. DIRECT OBSERVATION CHECKLIST
Direct Observation CHECKLIST
1 = not good/ weak/ or disorganized
2 = reasonably satisfactory
3 = good/ seems strong/ well organized
FUNCTIONING of the WMA
1 2 3 Additional Comments (as needed)
Functional office established
Office files visible and orderly
Visibly posted information on budget,
Projects, income and expenditure
Well-documented management of funds
Records of capacity building events
Existence and quality of Land Use Plans
Existence of Village Game Scouts
Regular payments to VGSs
Poaching data collected over time
LEADERSHIP of the WMA
Energy of the leader
Leader’s ability to convoke the community
Clarity of Vision of WMA leadership and
ability to express it
Transparency of the leader
Community reports it feels it is kept informed
IMPACT of the WMA
Decreased reports of poaching year-by-year
Revenue disbursed to community projects
Job satisfaction of VGS
Reported village sense of satisfaction with
WMA and sense of ‘ownership’ of WMA
activities
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 93
ANNEX F: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Date Venue-Courtesy Morning Afternoon
7 Aug Longido District Ol Molog Ol Molog
8 Aug Babati District Mwada Mwada
9 Aug Team Debrief workshop
10 Aug (Sun)
11 Aug (No District visit) Irkiushi Makame + WMA Office
12 Aug Kiteto District Ndedo Drive
13 Aug Konodoa District Kolo Mnenia
14 Aug Kikore Drive
15 Aug Vilima Vitatu Ngoley
16 Aug Magare Drive
17 Aug (Sun)
18 Aug Monduli District Manyara Ranch Manyara Ranch
19 Aug Esilalei + WMA Office Oltukai + WMA Office
20 Aug Karatu District G. Arusha (MBK) Ayalabe (MBK)
21 Aug Longido District Tingatinga Sinya
22 Aug Elerai Kamwanga
23 Aug Team Wrap up workshop
24 Aug (Sun)
25 Aug AWF Office Partner Validation Workshop
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 94
ANNEX G: LIST OF INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS
CONDUCTED
INTERVIEWS
Prof H. Sosovele Director, World Wildlife Fund, Tanzania (23/07)
George Wambura Executive Secretary, Authorized Association Consortium (24/07)
Yassin Mkwizu Program Officer, Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change,
Norwegian Embassy (25/07)
Matt Brown Director, The Nature Conservancy, Arusha Area Office (25/07)
Alphonce Blass Mallya Conservation Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy (7/08)
Edward Loure Executive Director, Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (8/08)
Ole Kirimbai Chairman, Honey Guide Foundation (8/08)
Jeremy Swasen Director of Development, Honey Guide Foundation (30/07)
Dominic O.Z. Kweka District Executive Director, Babati District Council (15/08)
Jacob Porokwa Executive Director Inywat E Maa (MAA) (6/08)
Emmanuel Muungi District Natural Resources Officer, Kidete District (13/08)
John Mwalongo Deputy Commissioner, Kidete District(13/08)
Daniel Alais Loishaye Chairman, Randilen WMA (5/08)
Meshuriek Melembuki Secretary, Randilen WMA (5/08)
Fidelis Olekashe AWF Manyara Ranch Manager (6/08)
Saningo Gabriel Kimirei AWF Veterinary Officer, Manyara Ranch (18/08)
Stanley Mruma District Natural Resources Officer, Karatu District (20/08)
Gary Steyn Manager, Mantis Tour Camp Manyara (19/08)
Joram Kabepele Natural Resources Officer, European Union (27/08)
Village Game Scout Kikore (14/08)
FOCUS GROUPS
Sinya CFW
Elerai HIV/AIDS
Ol Molog HIV AIDS
Oltokai- Manyara
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 95
Kikore- Micro Credit
Burunde- Anti poaching
Kamwanga VGS Anti-poaching
Magara Anti-poaching
Ngoley Anti-poaching
Mnenia Women’s REDD Nursery Activities
Irkiushi Women’s Economic Development
Kolo Women’s Economic Development
Manyara Ranch Staff
Ngoley Gender
Tingatinga Gender
Ngoley HIV AIDS
Esilalei Livestock
Oltokai Livestock
Ayalabe MBK
G. Arusha MBK
Kikore Gender
Mnenia Gender
Kolo Gender
Makame Gender
Sinya Gender
Vilima Vitatu Gender
Esilalei Gender
Magara Gender
Oltokai Gender
Kikore REDD Nursery
Mnenia REDD Nursery
Mnenia Agroforestry
Technical Staff AWF
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 96
Magara WMA Community
Makame WMA Community
Ngoley WMA Community
Ol Molog WMA Community
Tingatinga WMA Community
Irkiushi Anti-poaching Community
Sinya WMA Community
Vilima Vitatu WMA Community
Burunge WMA Management
Ndedo WMA Management
Ol Molog WMA Management
Kamwanga WMA Community
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 97
ANNEX H: DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX
Document Title Date Comments
Manyara-Tarangire Eco-System Final
Evaluation
12/2009 Essential background
SCALE-TZ Project Proposal including YR 1
Work plan
2009 Project overview
SCALE-TZ 2012 Annual Reports- 2010, 2011,
2012
Annual Project overview
SCALE-TZ Quarterly Reports
No: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18
Quarterly Project progress
SCALE-TZ Annual Work plans, Yrs 2,3,4 Annual Overview
SCALE-TZ Performance Monitoring Plan 4/2013 Overview
SCALE-TZ Environmental Compliance
Reporting- FY12
FY 12 Project compliance
SCALE-TZ Zanzibar workshop Power point
presentation
4/2013 Project progress
SCALE-TZ Budget Modification Letter 9/2013 Essential background
SCALE Scaling Up Conservation & Livelihoods
Efforts
10/ 2013 Project revision and cost-extension
AWF Annual Report 2013 Overview
AWF Northern Tanzania Summary 03/14 Overview and background
AWF “A Practical Handbook for Setting Up and
Managing a Wildlife Management Area”
USAID TZ NRM website Context
USAID Conservation Based Livelihood
conceptual model
8/2013 Context
USAID SO 13 Framework document Context
USAID Property Rights Paper Essential background
USAID Financial Crisis Initiative Performance
Evaluation
9/2012 Project progress
USAID Climate Change and Sustainable
Development 2012-2015
1/2012 USAID policy document
USAID TA Feed the Future websites Context
TMEMS Data Quality Assessment Background
Enduimet Eco-Lodge Environmental & Social
Impact Statement
8/2010 Project progress
TZA WMA Final Evaluation 2013 Essential background
GCC Standard Indicator Table 2012 Background
GoT WMA Regulations Background
Got Wildlife Conservation Act 2012 Essential background
AFW Adjusted NICRA rate Project progress
22 CFR Background
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 98
World Wildlife Fund CBNRM Quarterly Report Q2-2012 Context
World Wildlife Fund CBNRM Best Practices 10/ 2012 Context
Executive Summary CBNRM 10/2002 Context
Enduimet website Project progress
Mid-Term Review of REDD Policy Project 4/2013 Background
GOT Wildlife Conservation Act 6/2012 Essential background
AWF (Power point) Manyara Ranch School
Presentation
04/2014 Project progress
AWF/Kenya Wildlife Servie Amboseli-West- Kilimanjaro Large Carnivore Census Report
2012 Project progress
AWF Power point WMA data Access Project progress
AWF ARKFor REDD Proposal 06/2011 Project progress
AWF Northern Tanzania overview document 07/2014 Project progress
AWF SCALE-TZ Environmental Compliance
Reporting
FY 2012 Required project reporting
AWF USAID Tanzania GCC Standard Indicators
Table
Undated Required project reporting
Makame WMA Business Plan 2012 Project progress
Enduimet (Lodge) Business Plan 2008 Project progress
Burunge Power point (Threats) Undated Project progress
Burunde Luxury Lodge Business Plan 09/2008 Project progress
Solar Sister DPP 08/2014
Participatory Land Use Management Plans
Vilima Vitatu & Mwada
07/2000 Project progress
WMA Statement of TMKNE Working Group 11/2013 Project progress
Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI)
(Climate Change) Vulnerability Assessment
11/2013 Project progress
TAWIRI-Kenya Wildlife Service: Aerial Total
Count (Elephants)
03/2010
04/2013
Project progress
Honey Guide WMA Organizational Report
(Workshop output)
07/2014 Context
Honey Guide “Evaluation Summary: Tanzania
Wildlife Management Areas”
Undated Context
MAA Profile 2014 Undated Context
CCRO Briefing Paper 2014 (UCRT) Undated Context
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 99
ANNEX I: PROJECT PICTURES
Kikore irrigation not getting into the
Tarangire River Manyara Wildlife @ 8 meters
Esilalei Gender Focus Group Sinya Village Meeting
Ayalabe Focus Group Oltukai Women’s Focus Group
Final Evaluation Report - Performance Evaluation of the SCALE-TZ Project 100
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