ii Mid-Term Evaluation of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili Activity FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2022 Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Prepared by: Lauren Persha (PhD), Team Lead, NORC at the University of Chicago Iddi Mwanyoka (PhD), Subject Matter Expert, Data for Development Dominico Kilemo (PhD), Subject Matter Expert, Data for Development Theresia Philemon (PhD), Subject Matter Expert, Data for Development Bahati Tenga, M&E Specialist and MTE Activity Manager, Data for Development Amon Mazanda, GIS Specialist, Data for Development Supported by: Rose Aiko, Survey Specialist, Data for Development Augustino Munuma, Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili Activity/LEAT Reviewed by: Jake Laden, Evaluation Advisor, NORC at the University of Chicago David Hughes, Chief of Party Submitted by: David Hughes, Chief of Party ME&A, Inc. 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 21 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: Email: Cover Photo Credits: Data for Development Activity; Captured during field data collection of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili Mid Term Evaluation. 1: FGD with Community Member, Swaila Village, Nkasi DC. 2: Pastoralist taking his livestock for pasture at Nkwilo Village, Sumbawanga DC. 3: Floodplain along the settlement of Kalumbaleza Village, Sumbawanga DC. 4: Encroachment of Lake Rukwa in Mbwilo Village, Sumbawanga DC. A story map of the evaluation can be found in this link. RNRG Mid-Term Evaluation Story Map DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions 1 Evaluation Purpose 1 Evaluation Questions 1 Project Background 4 Evaluation Methods & Limitations 5 Findings and Conclusions by Evaluation Question 13 Recommendations 37 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work 41 Annex 2: MTE Design Document 52 Annex 3: Data Collection Instruments 75 Annex 4: Qualitative Data Collection Protocols 91 Annex 5: Sources of Information 112 Annex 6: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest 114 ACRONYMS Acronym Description AOR/COR Agreement/Contract Office Representative CATI Computer Assisted Telephonic Survey CBWSOs Community Based Water Supply Organizations CCRO Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy CRP Community Resource Persons CSOs Civil Society Organization DC District Council DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DED District Executive Director DENROs District Environmental and Natural Resources Officers DIS Development Information Solution DP Development Partner EG Economic Growth EQ Evaluation Question FBD Forest and Beekeeping Division FECEE Foundation for Environment and Community Economic Empowerment FGDs Focus Group Discussions FMP Forest Management Plan FtF Feed the Future GI Group Interview GIS Geographical Information System GoT Government of Tanzania IEC Information Education and Communication IGA Income Generating Activity IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRB Institutional Review Board IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JGI Jane Goodall Institute KIIs Key Informant Interviews KPI Key Performance Indicator LEAT Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team LGA Local Government Authorities LoE Level of Effort LULCC Land Use and Land Cover Change LUP Land Usage Plan MAST Mobile Application Secure Tenure MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MNRT Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NLUPC National Land Use Planning Commission NRMs Natural Resource Monitors OCA/T Organization Capacity Assessment/Tool PLUM Participatory Land Use Management RUSUDEO Rukwa Sustainable Stat Development Organization RNRG Resilience Natural Resource Governance Acronym Description SAM Social Accountability Monitoring SFTP Secure File Transfer Protocol SoW Statement of Work TFS Tanzania Forest Service USAID United State Agency for International Development USG United States Government VEO Village Executive Office VICOBA Village Community Banking VLFR Village Land and Forest Reserve VLUP Village Land Use Plan VNRC Village Natural Resource Committees VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association WUAs Water User Associations WT Ward Tribunals ZoI Zone of Implementation i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions The purpose of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) mid-term evaluation (MTE) is to assess activity performance by the Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT), in accordance with Cooperative Agreement (#72062120CA00002) and annual work plans therein. The evaluation also assesses the organizational capacity of LEAT to implement, monitor, and report on this Activity. The evaluation objectives are to: ● Provide evidence and learning on the extent to which implementation of the RNRG Activity adheres to planned implementation and is on track to achieve its objectives; ● Identify issues that implementers may have faced, including underlying assumptions within the Activity’s theory of change, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, and lessons learned; ● Assess overall success, and recommend any changes, if necessary, to ensure that Activity objectives are achieved; and ● Identify actionable recommendations that implementers can use to make course corrections as the activity moves forward. The primary intended audience for the MTE are RNRG implementing partners (IPs) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Tanzania. Secondary audiences include the Government of Tanzania (GoT) officials at national, regional, and local government levels, communities in Sumbawanga and Nkasi Districts, and other USAID IPs in the natural resource management (NRM) space. Project Background The RNRG Activity was designed to address primary threats to biodiversity and build the resilience of communities and ecosystems in a cluster of 18 communities in Sumbawanga and Nkasi District Councils in Rukwa region. To achieve this goal, RNRG focused on the development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans; improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable; improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and increased community awareness on NRM and climate change. The RNRG activity has four intermediate results (IRs): ● IR 1 Development and implementation of inclusive land use plans (LUPs). ● IR 2 Improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable. ● IR 3 Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and ● IR 4 Strengthen community awareness on NRM and climate change ii EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS. THE MTE HAS FIVE OVERARCHING EVALUATION QUESTIONS: Area of Inquiry Evaluation Question EQ1: Development, approval, and implementation of LUPs (IR1) 1. To what extent is RNRG progressing in the development, approval, and implementation of inclusive LUPs in the 15 villages? a. What was the process by which LUPs were developed with regional and district-level stakeholders and in communities, and to what extent did it adhere to national and district guidelines? Was everyone in the community who desired to participate able to do so (focus particularly on women, youth, farmers, pastoralists, or agro￾pastoralists? other potentially disenfranchised groups)? For people who did not participate, what were the main reasons why? b. Where established, to what extent are communities accepting and taking ownership of LUPs? Do community members understand the anticipated benefits of land use planning, such as clarified land access and use rights, reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCRO), the potential for new livelihood opportunities, and improved environmental and natural resources? In what ways are community members changing their own land use behavior as a result of the LUPs, and for what reasons? c. What benefits, if any, do community members report with approved and implemented LUPs? d. What key issues and challenges have implementers faced in implementing village land use plans (VLUPs), and how have they dealt with these challenges? What are the lessons learned to date, and what steps have implementers taken to overcome these challenges? EQ2: Community capacity to demand institutional accountability for NRM (IR2) 2. To what extent is RNRG increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources? EQ3: Community and Local Government capacity to manage natural resources (IR3) 3. To what extent is RNRG improving the capacity of communities and local government authorities to manage natural resources? a. To what extent is RNRG supporting risk-reducing and environment￾friendly income-generating activities? EQ4: Community awareness on NRM and governance, social accountability monitoring (SAM), and climate change 4. To what extent is RNRG raising community awareness on NRM and governance, SAM, and climate change through media, sports bonanzas, and information, education, and communication (IEC) materials? EQ5: LEAT and sub-awardee organizational capacity and collaboration 5. How is LEAT performing regarding organizational capacity and collaboration internally and with its agreement partners? What are the organization strengths and weaknesses? Have Organizational Capacity Assessment Tools (OCAT) been used? Were capacity gaps identified and what adaptations were applied to strengthen the organization and its partners? iii FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Table 1 summarizes the main findings and conclusions for each evaluation question. Table 1: Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions by Evaluation Question Key Findings Conclusions EQ1: Development, approval, and implementation of VLUPs ● The VLUP process is well underway in each of the activity villages; it has been completed in 13 of the 18 Activity villages and has generally been participatory and well-received. ● This has elicited stronger adherence to bylaws, ability to monitor and enforce bylaws, and intended related behavior changes among community members. ● Several envisioned benefits of VLUPs are starting to take hold including increased knowledge of land rights and boundaries, reduced land conflicts, and increased tree planting. ● Individual parcel mapping and CCRO distribution to villagers is lagging, with mapping completed in seven villages and CCROs distributed in one village. ● In the absence of renewable alternatives, villager dependence on natural resources to meet day-to-day energy and other needs continues. ● There is little evidence of economic benefit as a result of the VLUPs to date. RNRG has made good progress on the development and implementation of VLUPs, including developing or reinforcing bylaws and their compliance. While community participation in the process was generally seen as strong, individual villager support for some of the land use restrictions introduced through the VLUPs has been more contentious. The key focus of the RNRG Activity during its remaining years should be maintaining collective buy-in for those restrictions and working to achieve tangible benefits for individual villagers over the longer term as a result of those commitments. Further effort is also needed to ensure approved VLUPs and CCROs are in place in all 18 villages by activity end. iv Key Findings Conclusions EQ2: Community capacity to demand institutional accountability for NRM ● RNRG trainings and other awareness raising activities and the establishment and support of SAMs has increased transparency and good governance in NRM and increased the capacity of the community to demand accountability from institutions entrusted with managing natural resources. ● Per MTE training survey data, 90 percent of surveyed community respondents (N=115) felt RNRG has ‘somewhat’ or ‘to a great extent’ helped to improve community capacity to hold institutions and committees accountable, while 48 percent (N=207) of surveyed committee members felt their own capacity had improved ‘to a great extent’. ● SAM committees have been established in all 18 activity communities and are contributing to improving institutional accountability and natural resource conservation. ● SAM committees also face many challenges that threaten their sustainability. Although the SAM committees introduced by the RNRG Activity are new in the village governance structure, they appear to be influencing accountability in the target villages. However, some village leaders still question the legitimacy of the SAM committees, as they are not in the statutory village governance framework. In its remaining project years, there is a clear opportunity for RNRG to prioritize strengthening the performance of the SAM Committees, linkages between SAMs and village authorities, and to ensure that the SAM is more strongly recognized as a stakeholder in village development and planning activities. v Key Findings Conclusions EQ3: Community and local government capacity to manage natural resources ● RNRG provided trainings to a variety of actors including local government authorities (LGA) at district, ward, and community levels. An average of 40 community members were trained per village. ● Among other capacity building efforts, District Environmental and Natural Resources Officers (DENROs) in both districts highlighted that the training they received by LEAT increased their knowledge and provided them with specific skills useful for their day-to-day job responsibilities. Despite these achievements, there are ongoing resource shortages and technical capacity gaps among LGAs on some elements of the land use planning process, which may also be compounded by staffing shortages with respect town planners, wildlife and forest officers. ● In focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs,) ward and village level stakeholders reported improved knowledge, skills, and confidence in their NRM responsibilities as a result of RNRG trainings and support. ● Results suggest that substantially fewer community members participated in trainings on income generating activities (IGAs) and formation of village savings and loan associations (VSLAs.) ● RNRG has made less progress promoting environment-friendly technologies and alternative IGAs, although a range of activities are underway. ● KIIs and FGDs suggest an increase in tree planting in several RNRG villages, but there have been issues with low tree survival. RNRG has made significant progress in improving the capacity of the actors both at the district council and community level to manage natural resources. Despite this progress, there are several capacity gaps and related challenges that RNRG will need to attend to if IR 3 objectives are to be achieved and sustained beyond activity lifetime, particularly with respect to alternative and environment-friendly Income Generating Activities (IGAs). vi Key Findings Conclusions EQ4: Community awareness on NRM and governance, SAM, and climate change ● LEAT has employed several different strategies to increase community awareness on these issues, including trainings, radio programs, establishing environment clubs in schools, production of training manuals, leaflets, and signposts. The multi-pronged approach likely helped to reach a wide range of demographics. ● Sports bonanzas appear to have been particularly well-received and could have helped increase receptibility to messaging presented at public sensitization meetings. ● Radio messages are relatively infrequent and often seen as overly technical or not framed in plain enough language to facilitate a strong understanding by communities. The approaches RNRG adopted to raise community awareness on NRM and governance issues has generally been effective, while climate change awareness and SAM seems to be somewhat lower. Findings also indicate the significant contribution of SAM committees in providing awareness to communities on NRM and governance. RNRG’s approach appears to have contributed to stronger community ownership, while the multi-pronged media approach will help to strengthen overall sustainability of the messaging. vii Key Findings Conclusions EQ5: LEAT and sub-awardee organizational capacity and collaboration ● LEAT made a dedicated effort to understand USAID IPs’ requirements and specific elements of work planning that they had not previously been exposed to or had less familiarity with, such as results chains and situational analyses. ● Staff have made efforts to learn and be responsive to USAID requirements and learn new skills related to data collection, quality expectations, and reporting requirements. ● There is room for improvement with respect to LEAT’s GIS and mapping capacity, data quality, and leveraging other USAID and United States Government (USG) resources in this domain to improve their capacity to undertake forest and biodiversity monitoring to USAID standards. ● LEAT’s sub-awardee, Rukwa Sustainable Stat Development Organization (RUSUDEO), also took a number of steps to increase its capacity, including updating its financial systems, administrative and cost-sharing modalities, improving its data quality assessment skills, and undergoing trainings related to documentation, writing success stories, branding, and reporting. ● The RNRG Activity has also taken some steps to coordinate with or leverage activities from other donor-supported activities in the area, such as collaboration on messaging and awareness-raising with USAID’s Lishe Endelevu Activity, although more can be done. ● Improvements can also be made with respect to timely sharing of activity progress reports with district and relevant national ministries, as well as strengthening partnerships at regional and ministry levels. LEAT has made good progress in improving its own capacity and that of its sub-awardee, RUSUDEO. However, as the activity has progressed, it appears to have insufficient budget for a growing list of companion needs that the Activity work to date suggests are potentially also necessary to support longer term objectives of the Activity (examples include developing Forest Management Plans and supporting CCRO infrastructure in villages). viii RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the MTE findings and conclusions, the evaluation team proposes the following recommendations for the remaining implementation period of the RNRG project: EQ1: ● Initiate dedicated planning with district and village authorities to complete the remaining processes in each village, to ensure that all approved VLUPs are in place and CCROs are distributed to villagers in all 18 villages by the end of the Activity. o Help villages set time-bound objectives for the VLUP implementation and set up an LGA monitoring system for progress reporting. ● Work with district authorities to provide compensation to villagers who have given land for communal use as part of the VLUP process. Communicate the decisions on compensation and the justifications for the decisions to those who were affected. ● Support activity villages to form Forest Management Plans (FMP) and declare designated forested areas in their villages as Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFRs). EQ2: ● Provide additional training sessions on SAM to village leaders including Village Executive Offices (VEOs), members of village councils, and village committees. ● Consider ways to build more direct connections between SAMs and the district council, promoting official district council recognition for the SAM committees. ● Work with District Executive Directors (DEDs) to clarify SAM roles and responsibilities, and clarify their authority with village leadership and resolve conflicts between the SAM committees and the village leaders. ● Provide the SAM committees with standard operating procedures and an easy-to-follow template for reporting SAM activities. ● In coordination with the LGAs form an arrangement or a framework where a proportion of revenues from fines are used to support SAM committee members with allowances, equipment, or other needs to ensure they have resources to perform their role without incurring out of pocket expenses. EQ3: ● Provide refresher trainings to RNRG Activity ward and village community members on natural resource management and governance during the remaining period of performance. ● Consider supporting and utilizing ward extension officers in the activity wards/villages to a greater extent to help build sustainability of activities after the end of the Activity. ● Provide villagers with training and awareness raising efforts on alternative energy sources besides charcoal and fuelwood. To address short term energy needs, consider expanding woodlots and fuel-efficient stoves. ● Conduct research, outreach, and technical support through government extension agents and other development partners to identify and support viable alternative livelihood activities. o As part of this, consider assessing the potential for environmentally friendly IGAs such as improved/beekeeping, via value chain analysis and market analysis studies, to identify viable opportunities and potential challenges (including cost and basic skills required for such activities). o Form partnerships with private sector partners that may have solutions related to this on agricultural inputs, knowledge, and implementation for various climate-smart agricultural practices and market linkages to sectors that are less reliant on finite natural resources. ix ● Expand the focus on IGA implementation in RNRG villages for the remaining life of the Activity. Additional steps RNRG can take to help communities gain income while reducing pressure on natural resources include: o Scale-up promising activities, such as bustani jiko, effective agroforestry techniques, and modern beekeeping to increase their potential for impact. o Introduce activities such as fish farming and planting cash crop fruit trees (such as mangos and avocados). o Explore a range of other IGA activities, drawing on regional best practices to help strengthen potential sustainability of project goals and ensure that community members do not revert to activities that are harmful to the environment. o To put IGAs on a stronger path to profitability, consider innovative ways to generate capital for and/or revenue from IGAs, including looking at how to engage the private sector. o Consider new income generating/alternative livelihood opportunities related to alternative energy technologies as these alternatives are introduced; including installation and maintenance. ● For future tree planting activities, consider the following specific strategy modifications: o Obtain feedback from villagers on preferred tree species. o Conduct outreach with extension agents to ensure species are viable for the area. o Establish tree nurseries at village or ward level especially in villages where such nurseries are not available currently. In the current situation, the unavailability of tree nurseries in close proximity to villages and wards requires villagers to go to distant project villages to obtain tree seedlings or wait until they are supplied to them by LEAT/RUSUDEO. Having tree nurseries within their villages or closer to their villages will help to ensure timely availability of tree seedlings and sustainability of tree planting activities. Plan appropriate timing of seed and seedling distribution. Introduce irrigation for nurseries to ensure tree seedlings are available at the start of the wet season to allow the root systems to be established during the wet season. o Provide more education and training on appropriate tree planting techniques and seedling maintenance to help increase survivorship. Bring in appropriate technical specialists and extension agents who have experience supporting villagers in this work. EQ4: ● Focus on strengthening environmental awareness in communities, including expanding the establishment of environmental clubs to all primary and secondary schools in the activity area. o Engage communities in dialogue on key environmental initiatives that can be community led. This could include conducting dialogues on environmental issues such as deforestation, radio sessions where communities are actively engaged in discussion and aiming to go beyond more passive Q and A formats. In hamlets that have been submerged with the expansion of Lake Rukwa, dialogues could also focus on sanitation activities particularly relevant for these affected communities (for instance villagers from Ilanga village, Muze ward). o Develop champions among the village leadership to help promote environmental awareness and encourage other village leadership to support such initiatives. ● Review the messaging and implementation of behavior change communication approaches with an aim towards designing an effective multi-pronged campaign. Targeted suggestions include: o Developing and distributing cartoon messaging and short, easy to digest leaflets o Simplify training manuals to be more accessible and audience-appropriate. x o Increasing the frequency of radio sessions to at least one session per week. Also increase the coverage for radio broadcasts to include other stations across the region and improve consistency of timing of radio sessions. EQ5: ● To meet broader conservation objectives in the Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills, consider building stronger partnerships with other conservation-focused activities in the zone of influence (ZOI) and leverage those partnerships to widen the conservation reach across the landscape o To further LEAT capacity development, continue collaboration with other USAID partners (e.g. Jane Goodall Institute, Landscape Conservation in Western Tanzania, Research Triangle International, and Tuhifadhi Maliasili) to improve geographic information system (GIS) capability and forest and biodiversity monitoring. o Engage with other NGOs active in conservation activities in the Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills. ● Strengthen RUSUDEO’s capacity in monitoring and record keeping, ensuring that records and data are backed up to a server or cloud storage. ● Strengthen partnerships and communication with stakeholders at district, ward, and village levels throughout the remaining life of the project. ● Provide refresher trainings to ward and village level stakeholders and SAM committee members at least once every three years and convene more regular meetings for these groups; provide mentorship and education and enhance the potential for sustainability for after the RNRG Activity concludes. FOR USAID AND LEAT: ● Given that infrastructure to store CCROs is lacking in many villages, LGA should be encouraged to upgrade village offices to help ensure documents can be safely stored in each village in accordance with GoT regulations. ● Ensure RNRG resources can fully implement the program in the 18 villages and expand the Activity components to other villages in the two target districts in Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills. ● Promote dialogue with the regional government authorities on how to scale up the RNRG activities in other districts in Rukwa region, particularly areas in close proximity to forests and other natural resources and areas requiring protection of biodiversity. 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) mid-term evaluation (MTE) is to assess activity performance by the Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT), in accordance with Cooperative Agreement (#72062120CA00002) and annual work plans therein. The evaluation also assesses the organizational capacity of LEAT to implement, monitor, and report on this Activity. The evaluation objectives are to: ● Provide evidence and learning on the extent to which implementation of the RNRG Activity adheres to planned implementation and is on track to achieve its objectives; ● Identify issues that implementers may have faced, including underlying assumptions within the Activity’s theory of change, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, and lessons learned; ● Assess overall success, and recommend any changes, if necessary, to ensure that Activity objectives are achieved; and ● Identify actionable recommendations that implementers can use to make course corrections as the activity moves forward. The primary intended audiences for this MTE are: ● The RNRG Activity implementing partners (IPs), LEAT, and Rukwa Sustainable Development Organization (RUSUDEO) ● USAID/Tanzania staff, especially staff in the Economic Growth Office ● The Government of Tanzania (GoT) including officials from the national level, regional and local government authorities of Nkasi and Sumbawanga district councils (DCs), and communities in Sumbawanga and Nkasi DC ● Other USAID NRM IPs including Feed the Future (FtF) Land Tenure Assistance (LTA), Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), and other donors and development partners (DPs) in the NRM space The results and findings from this evaluation of RNRG will be used to 1) document progress toward stated intermediate results (IRs); 2) identify assumptions or gaps in the IRs design and management approach, and 3) help inform course corrections for the remaining period of the RNRG activity. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The MTE examined progress on the four IRs, reviewed key areas in support of the IRs, and assessed the institutional capacity gap to implement, monitor, and report on the RNRG Activity. The MTE sought to answer the following overarching evaluation questions (EQs): 2 Area of Inquiry Evaluation Question EQ1: Development, approval, and implementation of Land Use Plans (LUPs) (IR1) 1. To what extent is RNRG progressing on the development, approval, and implementation of inclusive LUPs in the 15 villages? a. What was the process by which LUPs were developed with regional and district-level stakeholders and in communities, and to what extent did it adhere to national and district guidelines? Was everyone in the community that desired to participate able to do so? (Focus particularly on women, youth, farmers, pastoralists, or agro-pastoralists? Other potentially disenfranchised groups)? For people who did not participate, what were the main reasons why? b. Where established, to what extent are communities accepting and taking ownership of LUPs? Do community members understand the anticipated benefits of land use planning, such as clarified land access and use rights, reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCRO), the potential for new livelihood opportunities and improved environmental and natural resources? In what ways are community members changing their own land use behavior as a result of the LUPs, and what are the reasons why? c. What benefits, if any, do community members report with approved and implemented LUPs? (This question should examine how, if at all, benefits contribute to an alleviation of poverty, empower local groups, promote conservation, and enable youth, women, and other sub-groups of interest to benefit economically from LUPs). Additionally, is there a difference in how communities anticipate/report benefits between those villages with approved plans and those without? If yes, what are the reasons why, and what lessons can be learned from this? d. What key issues and challenges have implementers faced in implementing village land use plans (VLUPs), and how have they dealt with these challenges? What are the lessons learned to date, and what steps have implementers taken to overcome these challenges? EQ2: Community capacity to demand institutional accountability for NRM (IR2) 2. To what extent is RNRG increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability from institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources? EQ3: Community and local government capacity to manage natural resources (IR3) 3. To what extent is RNRG improving the capacity of communities and local government authorities (LGAs) to manage natural resources? a. To what extent is RNRG supporting risk-reducing and environment-friendly income generating activities (IGAs)? 3 Area of Inquiry Evaluation Question EQ4: Community awareness on NRM and governance, social accountability monitoring (SAM), and climate change 4. To what extent is RNRG raising community awareness on NRM and governance, SAM, and climate change through media, sports bonanzas, and information, education, and communication (IEC) materials? EQ5: LEAT and sub-awardee organizational capacity and collaboration 5. How is LEAT performing in terms of organizational capacity and organizational collaboration internally and with its agreement partners? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization? Have they used the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT)? What capacity gaps did it identify? If so, what adaptations have been applied to strengthen the organization and its partners? 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND On March 6, 2020, LEAT launched the five-year (March 6, 2020-March 5, 2025) Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG1) activity funded through a cooperative agreement with USAID/Tanzania. The Activity was designed to address the primary threats to biodiversity and build the resilience of communities and ecosystems in the Sumbawanga and Nkasi DCs in Rukwa region. To achieve this goal, RNRG focuses on the development and implementation of inclusive LUPs; improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable; improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and increased community awareness of NRM and climate change. RNRG works to conserve land, wildlife, forests, and water resources and build the resilience of a cluster of 18 local communities and various ecosystems along the Lyamba lya Mfipa hills in Rukwa through its efforts to improve natural resources governance. The selection of Lyamba lya Mfipa hills as the target area for the implementation of the Activity was because of its rich natural resources including forests, wildlife, water, and land resources that are vulnerable to extraction and exploitation (Figure 1). The RNRG activity has four IRs: ● IR 1. Development and implementation of inclusive LUPs ● IR 2. Improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable. ● IR 3. Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and ● IR 4. Strengthen community awareness on NRM and climate change Figure 1. Rukwa Land Map of the RNRG Project Area. 1 RNRG stands for Resilience Natural Resources Governance. 5 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS This MTE was designed with a mixed-methods approach which drew on both quantitative and qualitative data in order to triangulate between sources. The data from which the analysis and findings are derived constitute a mix of primary data from surveys and interviews and secondary data originating from a review of background materials and analysis of activity performance monitoring data. The primary data was collected across 32 group or individual key informant interviews (KIIs) from USAID, IPs, partner IPs, civil society organizations (CSOs), and GoT; 14 focus group discussions (FGDs) with community members, committee members, or associations; and a telephone survey of 319 participants in various RNRG training activities that was fielded by predominantly youth enumerators from IPSOS, a subcontracted survey firm. Given improvements to the COVID-19 situation in Tanzania by the time of the MTE fieldwork in mid￾2022, the primary data collection took a hybrid approach whereby most of the interviews were done in￾person to allow the MTE team to benefit from direct interactions with district and community-level stakeholders and GoT officials. A small number of KIIs were done virtually via Zoom to accommodate schedules and respondent preferences. The mixed methods MTE utilized the following approaches: ● Desk review and review of program performance data, including a review of RNRG annual and quarterly work plans and progress reports, activity monitoring data, baseline survey, and other program documents; policies and frameworks guiding LUP and NRM and other existing literature on land conservation and natural resource governance in the two activity districts, Rukwa region, and Tanzania more generally. These sources were used to better understand the performance of the program, the surrounding context, and environmental factors contributing to natural resources and biodiversity conservation in the activity implementation area. The MTE team reviewed approximately 28 program documents and relevant literature and reviewed activity performance data going back to the start of the program on March 6th, 20202 to June 2022. Performance data were also used for trend analysis and visualization across indicators. A list of documents and literature reviewed is embedded in the scope of work (SoW) (in Annex 1). ● Individual and group KIIs were conducted with respondents at the national, regional, district, and ward levels, and with other key stakeholders in the space across the two districts of Sumbawanga and Nkasi in the Rukwa region as well as selected key informants at the national level based in Dar es Salaam and Dodoma. o KIIs were conducted with IPs: LEAT, USAID Staff Economic Growth/NRM teams, USAID IPs, DPs/actors (including CSOs and private sector actors) working directly in NRM and LUP in the implementation area, and Government officials at the ministry, agencies, and regional government respondents. o The Group Interviews (GI) were conducted with the activity implementing teams from LEAT and RUSUDEO in Rukwa, District Environmental Natural Resource Officers (DENROs) from the two district councils. ● FGDs were conducted with community-level stakeholders, including representatives from six ward tribunals in the activity implementation area, reaching members from three wards per district, and with headteachers and selected teachers facilitating environmental activities in selected primary and secondary schools. In addition, the MTE also held FGDs with representatives of four groups of community members who interface with the project including: Natural Resource Monitors volunteers from 15 communities who were involved in VLUPs from five communities that have begun the monitoring work in their communities using 2 Performance data is available starting in quarter 3 of FY2020 6 the Mobile Application Secure Tenure (MAST) technology. FGDs were conducted with representatives from the village SAM committees that conduct social accountability monitoring. FGDs were also conducted with representatives from the Water User Associations (WUAs) and Community Based Water Supply Organizations (CBWSOs), who manage the water sources in the catchment areas and ensure proper utilization/supply to the communities. FGDs were also conducted with the representatives of Community Resource Persons (CRPs), established to support IGA groups, as well as the representatives from the established IGA groups. Through FGDs, the MTE also sought the views and experiences of villagers involved in the RNRG activity, selecting representatives from each community in the implementation area. These FGDs were done with different gender and age groups to enable open participation in the discussions and to allow for comparison by gender and age. ● Selection of qualitative data collection sites at the community level interviews were done with coordination and support from LEAT. The team identified Swaila Village in the Nkasi district council and Kalumbaleza A Village in Sumbawanga DC, to reach the communities within the activity implementation area during FGDs. The community site selection considered accessibility for the participants in reaching the meeting places and engaged the communities in their own localities. ● Field observation Using a specific observation checklist form, the evaluation team conducted site observations of natural resources, land cover, people’s activities, and their behavior in their natural settings. Sites selected for observations were guided by the information gathered and issues raised during GIs and FGDs using a purposive approach. During the observation, geo-codes and photos were captured to support data analysis and visualization including GIS mapping. ● Use of GIS and land cover and land use change (LCLUC) analysis Remote sensing and GIS methods were used to analyze or visualize qualitative, quantitative, and spatial data to complement the MTE analyses. The GIS team conducted a LCLUC analysis to assess land cover change from 2019 to 2021, and highlight trends in vegetation and land use change over the life of the project. GIS was also used to develop maps on the demographic and spatial distribution of respondents, site locations for interviews, and field site observations. An integrated story map was developed to highlight key features of the site observation locations, issues and activities observed, and photos taken during the field observation. As part of the GIS work, satellite images of the RNRG Activity villages were integrated with village administrative boundaries to create analytical maps which highlight features of interest and landscape change that occurred during the period of the project implementation. ● Survey of trained participants An electronic, self-administered survey and computer￾assisted telephonic interview (CATI) survey of participants directly trained under the program was conducted to assess the performance of the capacity-building interventions under the RNRG activity. The survey also captured trainees’ views and suggestions for improvements to the activity to better meet its objectives and mid-term performance targets across its four IRs. The participants included DENROs at the respective DCs. At the community level, participants included ward tribunals, village committees, tree planting village leaders, community resource persons, and natural resource monitors. 7 Figure 2. Map of MTE KIIs, GIs, and FGDs Sites at Regional, District, and Community Level and Field Observation Sites Table 1 summarizes approaches and methods used to answer each of the key mid-term evaluation questions. Table 1. MTE Methods and Approaches Mapping of RNRG MTE Analysis Approach Data sources Planned Analysis Desk review of background documents Program description; annual work plans; quarterly and annual reports; monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plans; technical reports and presentations. other relevant documentation Systematic review KIIs with USAID KIIs with USAID Tanzania Mission staff (AoRs) and NRM team Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis KIIs/GI with IPs: LEAT and RUSUDEO and partners’ IPs KIIs with LEAT and RUSUDEO Qualitative coding KIIs with Partners’ IPs KIIs with DAI - LTA, JGI, Data for Development Qualitative coding 8 Mapping of RNRG MTE Analysis Approach Data sources Planned Analysis KIIs with donors/actors in space KIIs with donors implementing NRM in Rukwa include. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); actors including CSOs - Lishe Endelevu; community radio Chemchem FM, and FECEE Qualitative coding KII with Government Institutions: Tanzania Forest Services (TFS), and National Land Use Plan Committee (NLUPC) KII with national level institutions, TFS, and NLUPC Qualitative coding and analysis KIIs/GI with Government Officials: Regional and Districts Level Government Officials- regional level incl. the Natural Resource Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner. Districts Level incl. DENROs, DC, TFS Offices, District Environment and Natural Resource Officers Qualitative coding and analysis KII with Ministry of Natural Resource Management KII with policy and planning and forest and beekeeping division Qualitative coding and analysis KII/GI with Local Leaders KII with local leaders including ward councilors; ward tribunals; ward executive officer (WEOs) Qualitative coding and analysis GIs with Natural resource monitors Qualitative coding and analysis GIs with Head Teachers and Environmental Teachers for Secondary and Primary schools Qualitative coding and analysis FGDs with community people interface with the project FGDs at Community Level - SAM committees, WUAs, CBWSOs, IGA groups Qualitative coding and analysis Performance data from IP and in USAID databases Project Data: key performance indicators (KPIs) and MAST data; USAID Databases; Implementing Partners Reporting System:( (IPRS), Development Information Solution (DIS) Trend analysis and descriptive statistics on performance data and secondary data Survey of training participants– DENROs and members of ward tribunals, division and ward leaders, village committees and village groups, and other actors in the space Using a data set of training participants with contact information as provided by the IP (LEAT) Descriptive statistics 9 CATI Survey Respondent Demographics For the training survey, the MTE team targeted a sample of 319 survey respondents to achieve a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent margin of error. Survey respondents were drawn from a total of 600 training participants with contact information shared by the IP, which was consolidated from the seven training types that RNRG had conducted by the time of the MTE data collection. Based on IP data provided to the MTE team, six of the seven training types had relatively few training participants (between 21-40 participants), while the seventh training type, which was targeted to train village leaders and committee members on NRM and SAM, had about 452 trained participants with contact information. Due to the relatively small number of contacts in the training participants’ contact data set, a census approach was used to reach all training participants with contact information. Sampling was used in one case for the group of village leaders and committee members trained on NRM and SAM; a random sample was used to select the remaining participants to reach a total of 319 respondents across the two Activity districts of Nkasi and Sumbawanga. A total of 322 survey respondents were reached, exceeding the targeted number of survey participants for a 90 percent confidence level and 5 percent margin of error (by 3 participants). The survey participants were predominantly male 257 (80 percent) with just 20 percent female (65). Table 2 below shows the age cohort of survey respondents disaggregated by gender. Table 2. Respondents Demographics by Age AGE COHORT % Female % Male Total 15 -17 0.0 0.4 0.3 18 - 25 12.3 9.7 10.3 26 - 35 38.5 31.5 32.9 36 - 59 47.7 50.2 49.7 60+ 1.5 8.2 6.8 Total 100 100 100 As shown in Table 2, half of the survey participants were between the ages of 36-59 (50 percent), followed by young adults aged 26–35 (33 percent), and those 18–25 (10 percent), with the remaining 7 percent above 60 years of age. Further details on survey respondents’ profiles are presented in Figure 3 below. 10 Figure 3. Map of Training Survey Respondents by District of REsidence GEnder and LGA Position. Respondents to Qualitative Data Collection and Quality Assurance As mentioned earlier, a total of 32 interviews and focus group discussions were conducted to provide qualitative context and primary qualitative data for MTE findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Table 3 below summarizes the participant categories for KIIs, GIs, and FGDs conducted in each of the two Activity districts. Table 3. KII, GI, and FGD Respondent Categories Respondents National: Dar/ Dodoma Rukwa Region Total Nkasi DC Sumbawanga DC USAID Mission- AoR and natural resource team X - - 2 LEAT HQ, and implementing team X X 2 Sub awardee RUSUDEO X X 1 Partners IPs DAI- LTA, JGI X - - 3 11 Respondents National: Dar/ Dodoma Rukwa Region Total Nkasi DC Sumbawanga DC CSOs and private sector actors in the space in Rukwa; actors including Lishe Endelevu, REMSO, Chemchem FM, and FECEE - 4 4 Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism (MNRT) X - - 1 Government Officials- Regional Level incl. Regional Commissioner, Natural Resource Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner - 3 3 GIs – at the district level DENROs, TFS Offices - 2 1 3 FGDs – at the community level Representatives of Ward Tribunals - 1 1 2 Representatives of Natural Resource - 1 1 2 Representatives of environmental teachers for secondary and primary - 1 1 2 Representatives of the Participatory Land Use Management (PLUM) team across - - 1 1 Representatives of SAM Committees - 1 1 2 Representatives of WUAs and - 1 1 2 Representatives of CRPs and IGA - 1 1 2 Representatives of villagers across 18 villages of implementation (male and - 1 2 3 TOTAL 32 Limitations Key limitations for this evaluation team are outlined below: • Conflicting schedules among some of the government officials with key roles in the implementation of NRM and governance. The data collection period overlapped with two major government interventions, notably the preparation of Agriculture Day (Nane Nane), whose national celebration was organized in the Mbeya region. Thus, all regions in the southern highlands zone served as hosts of the event, and preparations for the National Census, which was in its final preparatory stage during the MTE data collection period. The evaluation team was unable to conduct some appointments scheduled with District Commissioners and chairpersons of both district councils due to emergency meetings called 12 by top national officials. In addition, some of the targeted respondents had traveled to neighboring regions to attend meetings for the preparation of these two events during the data collection period. To mitigate this, the evaluation team during their interviews with DENROs extended some discussions to capture some of current decisions made in the management. The data obtained via GIs with DENROs who are much directly and more substantially involved in the RNRG activities, was deemed sufficient to mitigate this loss of opportunity to gain insights from DCs and DEDs. In addition, further efforts were made by the evaluation team to make individual calls in the time of drafting of the report to fill the specific information gaps after the synthesis and analysis. ● Community member reluctance regarding the evaluation objectives, and potential recall issues related to RNRG activities that may have taken place 1-2 years prior to the MTE data collection. Some of the community members may have been unsure of MTE objectives or were hesitant to provide information to the MTE team. The evaluation team took steps to educate community members on the nature and importance of the MTE data collection activity and how evaluation results were intended to improve implementation of the RNRG Activity and may help the community in the near future. However, as with all qualitative data collection efforts, there is always a possibility that respondents may have recalled project experiences differently in hindsight, forgotten key elements, or were reluctant to speak openly about some experiences due to potential mistrust or concerns over potential social consequences. To help mitigate this issue, the MTE team used methods that triangulated information obtained across multiple types of respondents. 13 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY EVALUATION QUESTION EQ1: To what extent is RNRG progressing on the development, approval, and implementation of inclusive LUPs in the Activity villages? (IR1) FINDINGS The MTE findings indicate that half-way through the Activity period of performance, the LUP process is well underway in each of the activity villages where it has generally been well-received. This has elicited stronger bylaws adherence and the intended related behavior changes among community members. There is also evidence that several envisioned benefits of VLUPs are starting to take hold. Nevertheless, the VLUP implementation has not been without challenges and the MTE findings point to several issues where the RNRG Activity can focus efforts in the remaining project years to strengthen the ability for the VLUPs and implementation process to achieve its intended results with respect to improved NRM and governance in the activity villages. In terms of overall progress, the MTE team noted that the VLUP process has been completed in 13 of the 18 villages. Of these, eight have been submitted to the district for approval and four have been approved by the district while the other four are pending approval. VLUP development is expected to be completed in the remaining five villages during the next project year. At the time of MTE data collection in July 2022, land mapping and registration of individual parcels within villages had taken place in three villages in Nkasi and four villages in Sumbawanga, while CCROs were delivered back to villagers in one Activity village, in Sumbawanga District. No CCROs have been distributed yet in any of the eight activity villages in Nkasi District. Some KIIs suggest district staffing capacity challenges may be greater in Nkasi District compared to Sumbawanga. Local Government and Community Participation and Ownership The MTE findings suggest that RNRG’s development of LUPs has adhered to national guidelines and involved a range of appropriate stakeholders. KIIs and FGDs across all local government levels and with villagers indicate that the LUP process has been largely participatory. Multiple KII respondents agree there has been good involvement of district, ward, and village level authorities throughout the process. Community participation is also reported to have been fairly strong in many of the activity villages, with good representation in the process across different demographic groups (including women, youth, and elderly participants). In some villages, participation was noted to have been lower among pastoralists and fishermen, due to a combination of lack of awareness, perceived interest, or utility and the nature of their occupations that constrain their availability to participate. Some villagers chose not to participate either due to fear of government taxation as a result of having their land mapped and registered or being more typical late adopters who prefer to wait and see results from others before choosing to engage. While community participation in the process is generally seen as strong, individual villager support for some land use restrictions introduced by the LUPs is more contentious. For example, in some villages in Nkasi District, the restriction not to farm within 60 meters of water sources has been particularly contentious. This is attributed to the fact that there are villages that are traversed by numerous rivers and streams and therefore a fear exists of losing suitable land for farming. Lack of compensation for forced relocations or reallocation of individual land for communal purposes has also been met with some opposition from the community. Behavior Change and Benefits of LUPs to Date KII and FGD participants indicated that LUPs are widely seen as meeting the needs of community members, in the sense that communities participated and came to agreement together on their LUP provisions and bylaws. Community members appear to largely understand several potential benefits of 14 land use planning including reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain CCROs, and improved land and natural resource use. The KII and FGD participants also highlighted that the LUP process has reduced some long standing challenges and conflicts between villages over boundaries and between the two DCs. This achievement has been welcome. Demarcation of different areas of village land for designated uses has also helped to clarify boundaries and facilitated the ability to comply and monitor compliance with these uses. In addition, the development and reinforcement of village bylaws provided a clear framework to reduce conflicts related to land use and enforcement. KIIs and FGDs across both districts and multiple levels indicate that community members understand the importance of land use planning and its related elements and are beginning to change their behavior in positive ways. Examples cited by village, ward, and district-level respondents include: ● Fewer new land conflicts, including between farmers and livestock keepers, and between villages ● Reduced cultivation along water sources ● Increased tree planting and planting of home gardens ● Reduced use of charcoal by those who use energy-saving cookstoves ● Increased knowledge on land rights and individual and village land boundaries ● Resolution of long-standing land disputes among individuals and village parties ● Increased natural resources (forest) monitoring by SAM committees ● More transparency around confiscation of charcoal or timber by village authorities ● Improved morale for forest conservation among villagers ● Reduced number of livestock in villages with insufficient grazing land, emanating from community awareness and implementation of the bylaws.3 Community members in Sumbawanga District noted a reduction in land conflict following the establishment of LUPs. “The land conflicts that were previously there have reduced to a great extent and we now have village reserved areas for specific activities in the village.” – FGD with CRP and VSLA members, Sumbawanga District “In a month we would get not less than 10 to 15 conflicts in our village. Now, I see the conflicts have reduced. … In a month the maximum number of conflicts can be only two or no conflict at all”. – FGD with CRP and VSLA members, Sumbawanga District Community members also noted a change in awareness related to forest preservation and taking care of water resources. “The project has also helped us in knowing the importance of taking care of trees, because in the beginning people used to cut trees and leave them arbitrarily, but now people have changed” – FGD with CRP and VSLA members, Nkasi District “In our village … a high percentage of people have understood the importance of taking care of water sources.” - KII with SAM Committee member, Sumbawanga District Respondents attributed many of the changes to increased understanding and enforcement of village bylaws that were agreed upon or more strongly enforced as a result of the RNRG VLUP process, together with increased collection and use of fines at the community level, and trainings and awareness raising done by the RNRG activity (see additional discussion related to trainings in EQ3). 3 While this is a positive result of the activity implementation, it is also important to note that it entailed transfer to other areas within the Rukwa region further afield. This may not necessarily be a sustainable solution for larger scale conservation objectives or over the longer term. It is also recognized that livestock provide several benefits within communities and are also an important asset class in poor regions, thus some level of co-existence should be encouraged. 15 “Those laws that were there have been widened up more from the village level to the district level. For example, when a citizen goes against the laws, they know the fines that apply whenever they take maybe the cattle to drink at the water sources. So, it’s not only a law in that particular village but even across the district.” – FGD with CBSO and WUA members, Nkasi District. “Deforestation and burning of forests have decreased, but also water sources are conserved due to strong enforcement of bylaws. Previously one would walk with the axe on the shoulder cutting trees anyhow without any reason. But with the current execution of bylaws, one must seek a tree cutting permit from the respective authority.” – KII with community members, Nkasi District “Another impact I can say is that revenue collection has increased through these fines that are paid due to various offenses.” – FGD with CRP and VSLA members, Nkasi District Behavior change has also begun to lead to some tangible improvements to natural resources in some villages. The most common example noted in KIIs and also via MTE field observations was water source restoration in some villages as a result of improved village protection efforts, while other respondents highlighted reduced deforestation, charcoal burning, land erosion, or improved grass regeneration in grazing areas. Some of these observations are also supported by a LULCC analyses conducted by the MTE team for 2019-2022, which suggested a substantial increase in forested areas in some villages and an expansion to the extent of forest cover in the activity zone by 21.7 percent since the year prior to activity start (Figure 4).4 Notably, the analysis also suggests a large increase in flooded areas and vegetation along Lake Rukwa. Additional LULCC change maps will be provided in the final report in Annex 7. Figure 4. Land Cover Change in RNRG Villages, 2019-2022. 4Land use/land cover (LU/LC) derived from ESA Sentinel-2 imagery at 10m resolution. Each year is generated from Impact Observatory’s deep learning AI land classification model using a massive training dataset of billions of human-labeled image pixels developed by the National Geographic Society. Any significant clustering of tall (~15 feet or higher) dense vegetation, typically with a closed or dense canopy; examples: wooded vegetation, clusters of dense tall vegetation within savannas, plantations, swamp (dense/tall vegetation with ephemeral water or canopy too thick to detect water underneath). . 16 Villager dependence on forests in the Lyamba Lya Mfipa hills for firewood appears to be ongoing and poses a continued threat to broader biodiversity conservation objectives. For example, while village bylaws allow people to collect firewood from dried and fallen trees twice a week, KIIs and field observations indicated the deliberate cutting of standing live trees for collection as fuelwood still continues in some of the activity areas. The RNRG activity still needs to provide viable alternatives for their livelihoods if these restrictions continue to be imposed. The MTE findings suggest these new alternatives and new income opportunities as a result of the LUPs are not apparent to date, since where income-generating activities have been promoted, their impacts to improve local livelihoods have not yet been realized. The MTE findings also provide little evidence to date for income improvements or economic benefits as a result of the LUPs. This is in line with expectations, since the LUPs were only recently developed and any resulting economic activities and benefits would typically need more time to develop. Some MTE respondents highlighted the potential opportunity for villagers to obtain a loan with their CCRO as an anticipated future benefit; however, no one cited having obtained credit through this avenue as of yet.5 Key Issues, Challenges and Lessons Learned The MTE findings point to several challenges and lessons learned related to village land use planning, which provide an indication of issues that RNRG might aim to focus on resolving during the remainder of the activity. Key issues and challenges to overcome include: ● Addressing pastoralist needs and land uses, especially in villages where grazing land is insufficient. In-migration of pastoralists to the region will likely continue to exacerbate land conflicts in some areas. Village-level LUPs are unlikely to be sufficient to fully mitigate this challenge. ● Related to the above, findings provide little evidence that LUPs incentivize livestock keepers to manage encroachment into crop and natural resource land. If grazing restrictions cause herders to move their herds elsewhere, this shifts the issue geographically but does not solve the underlying resource challenge for the districts overall (and may exacerbate the issue elsewhere). ● Villages still face substantial challenges in obtaining full buy-in and compliance with some elements of LUPs, because villagers still rely on natural resources for their subsistence and livelihoods due to a lack of viable alternatives. In the absence of viable and accessible alternative sources of livelihoods and energy, many villagers will continue to rely on charcoal or fuelwood as their energy source. ● Some communities may have ongoing knowledge gaps regarding what LUP implementation truly entails, and therefore manifest difficulties adhering to the restrictions they agreed to in the LUPs. ● Improved energy-saving cookstoves are a helpful contribution and are commended by villagers, but their impact is limited if not implemented fully at scale. ● In some villages, there are ongoing concerns regarding compensation for individuals who were relocated or provided their land for community use as part of the VLUP process (for example, for schools, markets, or dispensaries). Individuals across multiple villages were reported to have agreed to provide their land for various community use purposes through the LUP process but did not receive compensation for this as required by law. Consequently, some of them opted to withdraw their decisions. In other cases, individuals were relocated from their 5 The MTE team highlights that RNRG should be cautious to not over promise on this in any case, given that existing studies from Tanzania have shown that CCROs on their own have not typically led to increased credit access for most rural villagers. This is particularly so in the absence of programming designed specifically to help villagers overcome the many other common challenges to obtaining credit that villagers face (often including, among others: insufficient knowledge to navigate loan application processes; low business and entrepreneurship skills; high interest rates, fear defaults and land dispossession by banks; and a lack of activities that are deemed to be sufficiently creditworthy by formal lenders). 17 land without receiving compensation. This has created bitterness from some and works against the ultimate goals of the LUP. Respondents from some villages expressed a feeling that good governance principles and respect for human rights were not fully followed, but citizens do not feel empowered or have the courage to voice this. ● Unclear dynamics around the potential transfer of ownership and management of forests in the Lyamba lya Mfipa hills to TFS, including tensions regarding forest reserves, contributes to villager uncertainty and at times mistrust in the VLUP process. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the MTE findings point to good progress that RNRG has made with respect to the development, village-level approvals, and implementation of VLUPs, together with their related elements such as bylaws development and implementation within communities. RNRG has achieved widespread participation in the process and there is good knowledge of the bylaws across community members. While community participation in the process was generally seen as strong, individual villager support for some of the land use restrictions introduced through the VLUPs has been more contentious. Maintaining collective buy-in for those restrictions, and working to achieve tangible benefits for individual villagers over the longer term as a result of those commitments, should be a key focus of the RNRG Activity during its remaining years. The relatively slow roll-out of VLUP approvals and finalization at District level, together with completion of all aspects of CCRO provisioning suggests there may be a benefit to RNRG setting specific timelines and engaging in dedicated planning with district and village authorities to complete the VLUP process in each of the remaining villages. Further effort will be needed to ensure that approved VLUPs are in place and fully approved, and to make sure CCROs have been distributed back to villagers in each of the 18 villages by the end of the Activity. EQ2: To what extent is RNRG increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources? FINDINGS This chapter presents findings on the extent to which the RNRG activity is increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources. The RNRG Activity promotes Social Accountability Monitoring (SAM) as a key mechanism to achieve this goal. RNRG Year 2 Activity reports indicate that the activity trained 646 (193F and 453M) members of different village committees (VCs, VLCs, VNRCs) on SAM as a tool for transparency and good governance in natural resources management. The training focused on (i) planning and resource allocation; (ii) expenditure management; (iii) performance management; (iv) integrity; and (v) oversight of water, land, wildlife, and forestry. The training was also provided to 74 (56F and 18M) ward councilors, 176 (86 M: 90 F) members of WUAs and CBWSOs, and 600 (295M: 305 F) villagers. MTE training survey data indicates that 90 percent of surveyed community respondents (N=115) felt that RNRG has ‘somewhat’ or ‘to a great extent’ helped to improve community capacity to hold institutions and committees accountable, while 48 percent (N=207) of surveyed committee members felt their own capacity had improved ‘to a great extent. The RNRG activity helped to establish and coach SAM committees in each of the 18 Activity villages by the time of MTE data collection. These SAM committees comprise 10 members representing different social groups such as men, women, youth, people with disability, and the elderly. The establishment of SAM committees has sensitized communities on their rights to hold leaders of the institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources accountable. Furthermore, the SAM committees have been effective in community awareness raising on natural resources management, particularly to support compliance with natural resources management and LUP by-laws. KIIs with IPs and DENROs suggested that following awareness of SAM, communities have started summoning their village leaders to share details on village income and expenditure during village assemblies, including revenues from natural 18 resources. This was also confirmed by FGDs/KIIs with various community groups such as SAM committees, natural resources monitors, ward tribunals, and community resource persons. SAM committees are also involved in providing education to the community about human rights, for example, the right to education and the right to be heard. This has been done through trainings with community groups and also through village public meetings, games, and sports competition. However, the MTE findings also highlight that SAM committees face several operational challenges, which largely emanate from the village government. Training was provided to village leaders on SAM and the SAM committee members were appointed by the village council and subsequently endorsed by the village assembly (the highest authority in decision-making at the village level). Despite these efforts, the committee is not well supported by village leaders in some villages. Some village leaders still question the legitimacy of the SAM committee. This suggests that additional training sessions for village leaders on the importance and role of SAM committees may be required. It also points to other actionable steps that RNRG can take to strengthen SAM capacity and community awareness more generally to foster greater institutional accountability for NRM in their villages. SAM Committee Establishment and Committee Reporting KIIs with IPs indicated that SAM committees were created with the intent of having representation across all members of the communities, with particular attention to youth, women, and the elderly. The committees were formed by villagers to monitor village resources. The committees appear to have been correctly formed in compliance with the Local Government (District Authorities) Act of 1982 numbers 7 and 8 which provides that "the village can form any committee, as they see fit". MTE team review of activity reports indicates that RNRG has established SAM Committees in all of the 18 Activity villages. The MTE team also reviewed SAM committee reports from 5 villages prepared in November 2021, which indicated that the committees were established in March 2021 after training for six (6) days. The reports summarized the process of SAM committee establishment, environmental challenges, and recommendations, but did not go into detail on activities performed by the committees for the year 2021. While KIIs with key stakeholders suggest that SAM committees are doing well in terms of raising community awareness on holding village leaders accountable, the SAM committee reports lack information on tangible efforts for engagement with village leadership. Contribution of SAM Committees to Forest Conservation in Lyamba Lya Mfipa Hills MTE findings suggest that the establishment of SAM committees has contributed to some improvements in the enforcement of by-laws on use of forest resources. KIIs with natural resources monitors in Sumbwanga district showed that SAM committee members work together with natural resource monitors to sensitize communities on the importance of conserving forests in Lyamba Lya Mfipa Hills. Among other duties, the monitors are responsible for reporting the presence of illegal activities in the forests to VNRCs who are able to charge offenders caught doing illegal activities in the forest and pay fines stipulated in the by-laws. The presence of SAM committee members ensures that the amount paid by the offenders to the VNRC is recorded and entered into the village income record properly. Before the introduction SAM committees, there was a tendency of VNRC members to under-report fines paid in some villages. For example KIIs with IPs and SAM committee members in Nkasi district reported that the VNRC caught and charged pastoralists who were grazing cattle in the Lyamba Lya Mfipa forest. The SAM committee members noted the amount paid. When the VNRC reported the amount received to the village council, it was found that the amount reported was less than the amount received. The SAM committee exposed this discrepancy and was able to take further action. 19 Contribution of SAM Committees on Water Supply and Water Resources Management Findings also indicated that the SAM committees have contributed to improvements in water supply and water resources management in activity villages. The SAM committee members have been active in educating community members to adhere to water resources by-laws, notably the prohibition of activities within 60 meters from a water source. “The SAM committee was involved in providing education on taking care of water sources, so the education now reaches them through the main meetings of the villages, we also appointed 4 members from the SAM committee who visited households and educated them on protection of water sources, because there was too much destruction of water sources in our village” (SAM committee member KII, Sumbawanga district). The SAM committee members hold regular meetings with CBWSOs and WUAs to understand issues and challenges in water supply and water resources management. The SAM committee members have also been keen to observe records around revenue generated from water users and how the village or responsible institutions are spending that revenue and the quality of water supply services provided to the community. The revenue from the water supply is obtained via a water use tariff paid by the villagers. The income from this tariff is expected to be directed towards reasonable administrative costs and infrastructure maintenance. Many SAM Committees Struggle to Retain Members and Have Low Morale KIIs with IPs suggested that SAM committees are an important tool to improve the awareness of natural resources committees, environment committees, water users associations, and the village land councils of their responsibilities and roles in improving accountability. KIIs and field observations suggested that the SAM committees are generally doing a good job. However, the MTE team also found that SAMs and natural resources monitors are facing several challenges in regard to sustainability of the RNRG activity. Village-level KIIs suggested that many SAM committees are disempowered or lack motivation, which can also lead to high turnover of committee members and difficulties recruiting others for this role. SAM responsibilities are time-consuming and voluntary, no allowance or compensation is provided, which is a source of low morale. In some KIIs, SAM members mentioned the time required to write reports or to travel to forest areas to conduct their monitoring duties, as well as a lack of equipment, uniforms, or identity cards. Lack of recognition by village leadership or involvement in village meetings also lowers morale and may affect the sustainability of SAM activities over the long term. The MTE found that the extent of cooperation between SAM committees and village leaders varies, and tensions were noted in several villages. Moreover, the distinction of roles and responsibilities between SAMs, natural resources monitors, and other village committees was not always clear. Two SAM committee members from Nkasi District described some of the challenges they face as follows: “In short, they should look at the issue of allowance. It is very difficult to incur costs for something that does not give you any benefit. That's why here in [our] Village as I explained, I have a challenge that everyone you choose [for the SAM committee] stays for a short time and then runs away. Everyone you choose asks you if there is an allowance. You see why? It’s because they see that this thing [taking on a SAM committee role] is of no benefit to anyone, you [have to] quit your job and go to track the information, the information itself is dangerous, at the end of the month nothing comes in, then at the meetings they give you two thousand [Shillings, for your time]. Now, what will two thousand help me?” (SAM committee member, Nkasi District) “SAM is accountable but it is like what we said, SAM is ignored. You may write letters to call for accountability but still, the SAM committee is not powerful.” (SAM committee member, Nkasi District) 20 MTE findings suggest that SAM committee members may need additional support for the work they have been doing, which can be particularly challenging because at times they are perceived as provocateurs by the village government. RNRG could consider working with village governments to set aside some portion of revenue from fines, which could be used as a financial incentive to support Natural Resource monitors and SAM members. However, it is not clear how feasible this might be in practice or whether village government would agree to this, given apparent friction between SAM committees and village leadership in some villages. KIIs and field observations by the MTE team pointed to some misunderstandings between SAM committees and village leaders regarding distribution of power, decision-making, and authority, which could be mitigated by a stronger articulation of the extent of the SAMs’ power and the boundaries of their authority. For example, the SAMs have taught communities to debate and question issues related to the use of resources, and in some instances, it was noted this led to an authority conflict between the village chairperson and SAM committee members, with chairpersons ultimately questioning the legality of SAM operations. RNRG Trainings Have Played an Important Role in Raising Capacity for Institutional Accountability The relative effectiveness of RNRG’s activities to increase awareness raising and capacity for individuals to hold institutions accountable for NRM is reflected in the training survey data obtained for the MTE. Of the 246 respondents who were trained on SAM, 86.7 percent of them (N=229) said they utilized knowledge or skills related to the SAM training they had received a lot or to a moderate extent and 90.4 percent (N=234) felt the knowledge or skills they gained on SAM had strengthened their capacity to participate in NRM. The survey data also suggests that a large proportion of trainees felt the RNRG trainings explicitly improved their capacity to hold institutions and committees in their villages accountable for their responsibilities with respect to NRM, while those from the corresponding institutions felt that the RNRG trainings improved their ability to carry out their NRM duties (Figure 5). Figure 5. Training Survey Respondent Rating of Extent of Change in Individual and Organizational Capacity for NRM as a Result of RNRG Activities6 6 Based on the following training survey questions: Survey Question: 24. To what extent has the RNRG workshops, trainings and related support changed your capacity to hold institutions and committees in your village that manage natural resources. And Survey Question: 23. To what extent has the RNRG workshops, trainings and related support changed the capacity of your organization to manage natural resources in your village / villages in your district? 21 The effectiveness of RNRG’s training and education activities to improve institutional functioning and accountability in the NRM space and on related activity areas was also reflected in KIIs with committee member stakeholders in both districts. Take for example, the following accounts on knowledge gains from Ward Tribunal members in the two districts; “In the beginning, these committees did not have a broad understanding of the activities they are doing. But now after being given training, the efficiency in their work has increased.” – FGD with Ward Tribunal members, Sumbawanga District “From the seminar and trainings we learnt different things, the first one being the protection of the water sources and educating the villagers not to be burning charcoal, so that they can reduce cutting down of trees. We also learnt that we as the Land Committee, our duty is to solve conflicts and not to give punishments.” – FGD with Ward Tribunal members, Nkasi District CONCLUSIONS The MTE findings suggest that RNRG Activity has made noteworthy progress in increasing community capacity to demand accountability of village-level institutions regarding the use and management of natural resources. This has been primarily through support to SAM committees. Although the SAM committees introduced by the RNRG activity are new in the village governance structure, they appear to be influencing accountability in the target villages. The training on SAM to the community and community leaders as well as the establishment of SAM committees has helped to improve the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of NRM institutions. The communities have begun questioning leaders on village income and expenditure during village assemblies. However, some village leaders still question the legitimacy of the SAM committees, as it is not in the statutory village governance framework. The MTE findings suggest that these committees are facing several challenges which RNRG can help to address in its remaining project years. There is a clear opportunity for RNRG to prioritize strengthening the performance of the SAM Committees, linkages between SAMs and village authorities, and to ensure that the SAM is more strongly recognized as a stakeholder in village development and planning activities. EQ3: To what extent is RNRG improving the capacity of communities and local government authorities to manage natural resources, and supporting environment-friendly income-generating activities? FINDINGS In the context of capacity building, the RNRG theory of change states that: “if the capacity of communities and government to manage natural resources is increased, then local governments will be actively held accountable and people will enjoy more equitable benefit sharing”. The evaluation findings suggest that the RNRG activity has made significant progress in improving the capacity of the actors both at the district council and community levels to manage natural resources. As reported during KIIs with the LEAT technical team, and corroborated by the MTE training survey data, RNRG provided trainings to a variety of actors including LGA officials at the district, ward, and local community levels. Support has been provided by RNRG for environmentally friendly IGAs across activity villages. However, findings revealed that there was limited progress in livelihood activities suggesting that more effort was required to make a significant impact on communities. Capacity Enhancement at LGAs and Community Level According to LEAT, District Council level trainings were provided to DENROs and community development officers. Among other capacity building efforts, DENROs in both districts highlighted that the training they received by LEAT increased their knowledge and provided them with specific skills useful for their day-to-day job responsibilities. Examples include using MAST technology, using a GPS to measure land areas, advising villagers on pastureland requirements given the size of their livestock holdings, and developing conservation-oriented bylaws. They were also imparted with skills on developing NRM by-laws 22 and general knowledge on the laws governing land and other natural resources in Tanzania. The utility of the training to the DENROs were substantiated during FGD with DENROs in both DCs: “Previously I did not have knowledge on the conservation by-laws. I was not aware of the existing interdependence of livestock, land and farming but now I have that knowledge. I got knowledge on the use of MAST technology that I did not have before. I am sure the knowledge I have gained through these trainings will be helpful even in future as I discharge my duties” (FGD participant with DENROs, Nkasi DC). At the ward levels, trainings were offered to the ward councilors, ward executive officers, ward development officers, and ward livestock officers while at the village levels trainings were provided to community members in general and members of village level institutions on issues related to NRM and SAM committees. Trainee registration data provided to the MTE team by RNRG indicated that an average of 40 community members were trained in each RNRG activity village. The RNRG activity training reports also supported these findings. Additionally, RNRG trained a total of 40 para-surveyors on various aspects of the LUP process. Subsequently, these surveyors participated in land demarcation, soliciting accurate information on land and ensuring registration of customary rights of occupancy. Field data further indicates that the RNRG activity also facilitated training of two natural resource monitors in each activity village. Essentially, NRMs are the community members (males and females) deployed in the activity villages to oversee the proper management of natural resources including the protection of water sources and vegetation cover and provide regular feedback to the village leaderships and fellow community members during village meetings. Their role in helping to achieve activity objectives was also echoed during FGDs. “Speaking of [our] village, I should say the coming of this project has been a blessing. Trees and grasses have been planted and unlike in the past we are now seeing steady flow of water in our rivers and we have access to clean water. We are very grateful to LEAT” (A participant during FGDs with CRPs and VSLA members in Nkasi DC). KIIs with LEAT also reported that some of the villages in the activity area had by-laws in place even before the RNRG activity commenced, but they were not being enforced. The KIIs further brought out that, in such villages, the RNRG activity has been seen as facilitating re-enforcement of these by-laws. This observation was also underscored during FGDs with members of CBWSOs and WUAs in Nkasi DC. Community members across the activity villages mentioned that training and formation of by-laws facilitated by LEAT had enlightened them on the importance of sustainable natural resource management, promoting tree planting around water sources, and addressing problems with arbitrary grazing. Natural Resource Monitors from an RNRG activity village in Nkasi DC noted the training had sensitized villagers to voluntarily plant trees around degraded water sources and farm 60 meters away from water sources as stipulated in section 34 of the Tanzania Water Resources Management Act, 2009 and section 57(1) of the Environmental Management Act, 2004 respectively. Nevertheless, some NRMs reported that village chairperson and themselves have encouraged villagers to cultivate just three meters away from water sources. They said this initiative has motivated people to plant trees along water sources. It was further reported that this has resulted in significant improvement to the once degraded water sources as reported in several activity villages by KIIs and FGD participants including villagers, members of the ward tribunals, and members of CBWSOs and WUAs. For instance, during FGDs with the CBWSOs and WUAs in Nkasi DC, the increase of water levels in rivers and streams was repeatedly reported by the participants as substantiated by the following quote: 23 “From 2018, 2019 to 2020 there has been scarcity of water in [our village], but since the education of preserving water sources was given, the situation has improved significantly. We went there just this June and found water has increased something that was so encouraging”. (An FGD participant, Nkasi DC) In FGDs and KIIs, ward and village level stakeholders reported improved knowledge and confidence in their responsibilities related to NRM as a result of RNRG trainings and support. Similarly, village committees are viewed as having a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities, while the existence of village bylaws has created a sense of confidence in committees’ abilities to resolve land and natural resource-related disputes. Community Participation in NRM and IGA Trainings FGDs and KIIs at different levels showed that a remarkable number of community members (males and females) participated in the trainings on NRM focusing on key sectors notably forests, wildlife, water land, and climate smart practices such as tree planting and kitchen gardens and developing and enforcing by￾laws. Likewise, 132 community members were trained on issues related to IGAs. The level of participation in these trainings was substantiated by the responses from the RNRG activity field evaluation survey (Figure 6). While the figures in the graph demonstrate significant strides attained in training community members on issues related to NRM, the results suggest that substantially fewer community members participated in trainings on IGAs and formation of VSLAs— at 41 and 39 percent of the respondent sample, relative to respondents’ reported participation in various NRM, bylaws, and climate-smart topics. This finding points to the need for more deliberate effort in training more community members in those areas given the Activity’s intended links between increased IGAs and improved NRM. Figure 6. Community member participation in various RNRG trainings Source: MTE Training Survey Data 24 The results in Figure 6 are supported by the following quote from a community representative: “The success is that for now there is awareness among community members about natural resources and the community groups have been active since LEAT came and gave education. In fact, there is great collaboration among group members themselves”. (FGD Participant, Sumbawanga District The training survey data also indicate that the vast majority of surveyed respondents who received training on these NRM, IGA, and LUP topics felt they had gained new knowledge of skills on that topic, and they perceived the training to be useful for their role or position (Figure 7). This was particularly so for NRM training topics related to forests, land, water, and bylaw management and enforcement7.. Figure 7. Respondent Rating of Extent of New Knowledge or Skills Gained from RNRG Training. Despite the apparently lower training coverage on IGA and village community banking (VICOBA) topics, the MTE team found some evidence that villager training and participation in VSLAs has helped some individual community members to switch to IGAs that are not detrimental to the environment/forest. Along with training on NRM and land use planning, community members were mobilized and trained to undertake a range of NRM supporting interventions in both districts. These interventions included making and using energy-saving stoves (Figure 8) to reduce pressure on natural forests and reduce energy and time spent by family members and especially women seeking firewood in the forests and far afield, practicing “bustani jiko” and training on IGAs where villagers were supported to establish new VSLAs 7 Additional tables of data collected from the survey will be annexed in the final report. 25 and/or strengthening the existing ones. In addition to environmental benefits, the bustani jiko may have knock-on benefits for household nutrition and income as well. One SAM committee member summed up his view of the bustani jiko like this: “In the beginning, if you wanted green vegetables, you had to go to the farm to get them. But right now, they are [available] at home... It also reduced environmental pollution. Many people have adopted [it].” KII with SAM Committee member, Sumbawanga District. Capacity to Enforce Village By-laws to Support Natural Resource Management As indicated earlier, the RNRG activity supported the communities to develop and rejuvenate the existing by-laws in the activity villages, particularly considering water sources, forest areas, and pastoral areas. KIIs, FGDs, and field observations showed significant improvement in environmental management in activity villages due to the enforcement of these by-laws. These include supporting protection of water sources, facilitating grazing in the allocated land areas, destocking, and addressing land conflicts. However, some respondents were concerned about incidents where some village leaders herded their cattle into their villages as a source of revenue and opted to avail land for the livestock keepers. Also, there was a lack of clear understanding on the fines being charged to offenders for breaking the existing by-laws. Clearly, this is an issue that calls for clarity, especially at the community level to enhance local community knowledge on the enforcement of the by-laws and also to enable other local level institutions such as SAM committees to perform their roles more effectively. NRM Capacity Challenges Despite the strong evidence that RNRG has improved NRM capacity within activity villages and at district level, the MTE team also found some indication of ongoing challenges that the Activity may consider addressing to help strengthen its ability to achieve this IR and overall project objectives. Key among these are: ● KIIs revealed a missing link between the NLUPC and LGAs. The NLUPC prepares land use planning guidelines, but there is a lack of training strategy for the district land planning team. As a result, the district land planning teams lack sufficient information and capacity on land use planning processes. One KII conducted with a land planning expert noted that NLUPC introduced additional maps for the land use planning process. However, more needs to be done to ensure capacity to integrate those maps at the district council level. ● The findings revealed lack of a clear linkage and collaboration between LGAs and SAM committees. This undermines the important role that SAM committees are doing. If left unabated, this may affect sustainability of these vital NRM local institutions. ● The LGAs lack adequate capacity in terms of personnel and other resources to support NRM. For instance, some district-level or regional KIIs noted that Nkasi DC did not have a town planner, wildlife officer, or a forest officer. This challenge was echoed in some regional and national level KIIs, which noted a shortage of forest officers to manage the existing forest resources across the country. As one respondent noted: “Under normal circumstances, one forest officer with sufficient equipment should manage not more than 5000 hectares of forests. So, how many hectares does Lymbalimfipa itself have and how many hectares are there in Sumbawanga district alone”? (KII National GoT) start-up capital to help get on stronger footing and improve their potential for success. At the same time, IGA group members noted other benefits they have received National government officials mentioned factors that contribute to resource shortages needed to manage natural resources and forests in particular: 26 “It is everywhere. Even at the national level, the importance of forests in the sense of environmental conservation has not been well realized. Forests have not been given the attention they deserve. If we don’t give forests the attention they deserve they will vanish and the evidence is clear. Satellite pictures show that the forests we had in the 1920s have decreased a lot”. The fact is, If the importance of forests is realized at the national level even job opportunities will increase.” (KII national GOT) Work to Promote IGAs and Environment-Friendly Technologies is Nascent but Underway MTE findings suggest that RNRG has made less progress promoting environment-friendly technologies and alternative IGAs, although a range of activities in this domain are underway. The establishment or support to VICOBAs has been particularly well-received in villages. Fuel efficient stoves (majiko banifu) have also been installed in several villages, although there is a need for additional training in their proper installation to ensure appropriate ventilation and safety, and their wider utility and uptake. The establishment of home gardens (bustani jiko) has also been well-received as a helpful alternative livelihood intervention but has also been implemented on a limited scale. Progress in tree planting, agroforestry, and beekeeping has been more limited with several challenges encountered. KIIs with the LEAT technical team and RUSUDEO noted that some of the IGAs undertaken to date have empowered community members to grow economically and address their financial challenges. These observations were also evident in FGDs with village group members across the RNRG activity villages including those who are members of IGA and SAM groups. Likewise, during interviews, community members reported they acquired skills on a range of areas such as construction of energy-saving stoves, tailoring, and basket-making. However, multiple KIIs suggested that it would be helpful if RNRG could provide some of the nascent IGA groups with from the IGA activities to date. Community groups reported enhanced local community interactions and social networks as additional benefits, as the participating members support each other in joyful events such as weddings but also in times of illness and for funerals. FGDs, GIs, and KIs revealed that community members perceive these interventions as tangible benefits emanating from the RNRG activity, as validated by the following quote: “A good thing is that LEAT brought us to life since we were inactive. I also thank God that around that time we had harvested about 40 sacks of maize and rice and LEAT gave us information that we had never received from any organization or the government” (Village FGD participant, Sumbawanga District) The testimonies of activity participants underscore the strides that the RNRG activity has made towards achieving relevant results (IR3 in particular). Nevertheless, in MTE team discussions, VSLA members and natural resource monitors repeatedly appealed for regular seminars/refresher trainings on a range of issues to enrich their knowledge particularly on VLUP, soil type and tree species to be planted in specific locations, climate change, and laws and by-laws governing natural resources. The desire for RNRG activity to provide regular refresher trainings to village-level targets was also emphasized during interviews and discussions with some LGA respondents, as captured in the following quote: Figure 8. Energy-serving stoves: one of interventions promoted by the RNRG activity. 27 “They [RNRG] enlightened villagers. But I am also asking for this project not to let us [SAM Committee] down, to continue to be with us even for several years to come. Because as you know, we do hard work, but also [would like] to be given the opportunity to continue to be given various training and education.” - KII with SAM Committee member, Sumbawanga District KIIs held with TFS also echoed the need for regular and more ‘hands-on’ training and awareness creation to local community members on NRM. They said despite efforts to conserve natural resources being made in Sumbawanga by various stakeholders including LEAT, more is required to improve the situation on the ground since demand for both timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) is increasing and is compounded by a growing population that exerts more pressure on natural resources. Tree Planting Progress and Challenges KIIs with villagers and village committee members indicated there has been an increase in tree planting across several RNRG activity villages as a result of the intervention. However, while the tree planting activities have generally been seen as useful, several informants reported issues with low tree survival in several villages. High seedling mortality appears to stem from a variety of reasons including insects, poor soil or other growing conditions, and/or receipt of seedlings in villages too late in the growing season. Some village-level FGD respondents requested that RNRG establish tree nurseries directly in their villages to ensure easier access to tree seedlings and timely planting during the rainy season. Overall, the MTE findings with respect to tree planting suggest an opportunity for RNRG to strengthen its tree planting activities during the remaining life of the project. “They usually bring trees in March when the rain season is already finishing. So many trees dry and die.” And “When they bring those seedlings (tree species) to the villages they should also educate on how to plant those trees with details regarding what is needed to be mixed in a specific tree for better results. And not giving you trees and leave you not supervised when planting.” – KII with local implementer, Sumbawanga District. Beekeeping as a Potential Conservation and Income Generating Initiative Strategy Beekeeping is widely promoted by development agencies to alleviate rural poverty and provide an incentive for forest conservation (Wagner et al., 2019). The MTE team observed beekeeping as a potential alternative IGA in Nkasi and Sumbawanga DCs. This finding was also emphasized in interviews with TFS. Reportedly, preceding the RNRG activity, community members in some Activity villages in Nkasi and Sumbawanga DCs were already practicing beekeeping. For example, one group was formed in February 2022 and started with 30 beehives but by the time of the MTE data collection, he had 100 beehives: “We started with 30 beehives. Afterwards we harvested 30 buckets of honey. After selling the honey, we purchased more beehives, and we now have 100 beehives. We don’t have any money now, since we invested all of it in the beehives”. There is strong potential for beekeeping in both Sumbawanga and Nkasi DCs, although this does not appear to have been a focus of the RNRG activity to date. The MTE team recommends that RNRG consider beekeeping as a potentially instrumental alternative to IGA. This may in turn help to reduce pressure being exerted on the Lymba lya Mfipa hills/forests due to anthropogenic activities.8 8 A Group Interview (GI) with representatives from a Partner IP also underlined the importance and relevance of beekeeping as alternative IGA, based on their experiences implementing conservation projects in other regions of Tanzania. 28 CONCLUSIONS The RNRG activity IRs are in line with a range of national environmental concerns identified in the National Environmental Policy, 2021. These concerns include low public awareness and knowledge on environmental management; inadequate land use planning at various administrative levels; inadequate enforcement and compliance of various legislation related to environmental management; inadequate alternative sources of energy and dependence on charcoal and firewood as the main source of energy; increased encroachment of water sources; and limited capacity in terms of human, financial, and infrastructure. MTE findings suggest that RNRG activity has made noteworthy progress towards achieving IR3 on “Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources”. The activity has built capacity to local community members, local level institution’s actors and LGA officials through training on VLUP processes and natural resource management and governance, including formation of the by-laws to support natural resource management at the community level. Local community members have also been imparted with skills to help reduce pressure on natural resources such as forests and water through making and using of energy-saving stoves that has reduced time spent by women to look for firewood in the forests. The formation of VSLAs and supporting alternative IGAs to reduce community high dependence on natural resources as their main livelihoods source. Despite notable progress that the RNRG activity has made towards achieving IR 3, there are remaining capacity gaps which are critical to fill in order to achieve results and sustain these efforts during the rest of the program. EQ4: To what extent is RNRG raising community awareness on NRM and governance, SAM, and climate change through media, sports bonanzas, and IEC materials? FINDINGS This section presents findings related to RNRG activity objectives to increase community awareness on NRM, governance, SAM, and climate change issues as a mechanism to help strengthen NRM objectives more broadly. To date, LEAT has employed several different strategies to increase community awareness on these issues. The RNRG Year 3 annual work plan indicated that between October 2021 and September 2022, IPs planned to conduct 15 in-school and 15 public sensitization meetings to share NRM and climate change messages to the community members and primary and secondary students in 15 of the activity villages. Related activities included the Air Out radio program, establishing Mazingira clubs in 19 schools across 15 of the activity villages to create a generation that understands the importance of NRM and the impacts of climate change, as well as documentation of eight success stories to be shared on Mazingira online TV, LEAT social media, and LEAT’s website. MTE findings suggest that the approaches RNRG has adopted to raise awareness on NRM and governance issues has generally been effective particularly for VLUP and issues related to natural resource use and management. The findings also point to some key areas for improvement in the remaining Activity lifetime, including on SAM and climate change awareness. It was also noted that access to messages through media and events is a challenge in many of the remote Activity villages, particularly in Sumbawanga District. Still, KIIs and FGDs highlighted that radio messages are relatively infrequent and often seen as overly technical or not framed in plain enough language to facilitate a strong understanding by community members. To help remedy this during the remaining period of performance, the Activity can focus on improving its planning and production of messaging through media and other modalities. Community Awareness on NRM and Governance Interview notes taken during field work indicated that 17 in-school (two secondary and 15 primary schools) and 13 public sensitization meetings accompanied with sports bonanzas and games competitions 29 were conducted. Moreover, 17 environmental clubs were established to deliver messages on NRM and governance. The lower number of meetings in secondary schools is because there are only two secondary schools located within the villages in the project area. Interviews with both IPs and sub-awardees indicated that community awareness on issues of management for natural resources has increased to some extent compared to the period before the RNRG activity. The increased awareness is more evident and participation in day-to-day project activities is increasing across the project villages. Furthermore, the findings showed that there was an increase in community understanding on environmental matters. For instance, regarding the VLUPs activities, it was noted that people had a better understanding of this process as compared to the past, when it was common for people to perceive the process as leading to land dispossession. Through the RNRG activity, awareness was made to villagers that the VLUP would help them secure CCROs. They were also made aware of the different ways that environmental conservation can be to their own benefit. The MTE findings suggest that various awareness activities conducted by RNRG have resulted in substantial achievements at village level. KIIs at regional level with DENROs suggested an increased demand for tree planting activities in the RNRG villages. This also demonstrates an increased NRM and governance awareness at community level especially when compared to at or before the start of the RNRG Activity. For example, in 2022 when tree seedlings were distributed in villages, the citizens scrambled at the delivery points to ensure that they get enough tree seedlings. Another evidence of increased awareness on NRM is the fact that villagers from each project village wanted to have a tree nursery established within their villages. KIIs with the LEAT technical team and the activity sub-awardee indicated that training and meetings were held with different stakeholders at different levels from district, ward, and villages to ensure that an adequate number of community members are aware of NRM issues. To ensure sustainable awareness raising activities, 40 members were trained on NRM and governance at village level, who in turn were asked to share the knowledge with other village members. As an example of an innovative and effective approach, local implementers, members from schools both primary and secondary at Sumbawanga DC, suggested the introduction of NRM awards to winners from the established environmental clubs at schools. These awards were made to those who excelled in looking after their seedlings. This helped to increase and sustain survival rates of planted tree seedlings and helped to impart good practices among youth in the village. KIIs conducted with CSO actors operating in Sumbawanga mentioned that community awareness on NRM and governance has increased particularly through education sessions, which were provided via media channels. By the time of the MTE, 12 radio program sessions had aired. The use of radio special program sessions was crucial in cementing awareness such as provisioning of environmental education focusing on the advantages of conservation. Other topics included the importance of community participation in land survey and provisioning of CCROs. Through special radio programs, people were able to ask questions and demand clarification on management of natural resources in relation to RNRG activity. It is suggested that to strengthen and sustain awareness raising through radio programs, there is a need to consider when programs will be aired and to be consistent in ensuring they happen at that time. Listeners will then know when to listen. RNRG has produced and disseminated a wide range of IEC materials. While it was outside the MTE team’s scope to determine which of the formats or approaches have been most effective, the MTE findings suggest that some combination of the various awareness-raising and IEC strategies have been successful in strengthening awareness. As highlighted through MTE training survey data presented in earlier EQs, KIIs with IPs suggested that understanding on laws governing natural resources has improved. This is also evidence that communities are adhering to the bylaws they developed including reducing farming activities within 60 meters water sources and reducing tree-cutting without permission from natural resource committees and village government. 30 Still, RNRG likely has an opportunity in its remaining activity lifetime to narrow down the focus and consider more targeted communication efforts going forward. Interview notes taken during MTE field work indicate the production and dissemination of 1,080 training manuals (of 3500 produced), 195 LUP signposts, 210 posters,9 50 stickers, 15 bookshelves, 2 wall banners, and 2 roll up banners to provide awareness on NRM to the general public. Land use signposts have been recognized as effective ways of conveying messages on management of natural resources simply because some signposts caution the population regarding established village bylaws. FGDs with the local community in Nkasi district indicated that signposts that had been posted in different areas of the project villages showing land use required for a particular place has increased awareness among the general public. During field work, the evaluation team observed leaflets at VEO offices in some activity villages. It is not clear if some of the IEC materials had not yet reached the community as planned. It is suggested RNRG considered disseminating these materials in open spaces like market areas or hospital/dispensaries. According to the RNRG Year 2 annual report (October 2020-September 2021), several posts regarding RNRG activity results were shared on Mazingira TV online and social media accounts including @MazingiraTvOnline, Facebook @TvMazingira, and LEAT social media accounts: @LEATTEAM and @InfoLeat and that 68,737 people were reached through posts shared through Twitter, Facebook, and Mazingira TV. Through these broader social media posts, awareness on NRM and governance reaches more people beyond the activity area. It is not as clear how effective that broader reach might be in strengthening the ability for RNRG to achieve its direct objectives and IRs in Sumbawanga and Nkasi Districts. Community Awareness on Climate Change Findings indicate that members of the community are aware and have an understanding of climate change issues and that the understanding was gained through radio programs, seminars and trainings, and schools’ sensitization meetings. The results of this MTE activity indicate that villagers in the project area were able to associate climate change with a lack of the normal flow of rainfall patterns, drying up of river channels, increases in temperature and wind as well as the expansion of Lake Rukwa. Respondents in an FGD held in Sumbawanga district reported experiencing more variability of seasonal rainfall and they shared their concerns over experiencing erratic and unreliable rains at expected or unexpected times of the year (for example, rains in June through November in some years; or the seasonal rains not starting until October or December in other years). During KII with CSO-REMSO in Rukwa region on July 8th, 2022, a male respondent narrated that “for the past five years, the rains used to start from October until March or April, but nowadays the rainy season starts in December and stops in April”. The MTE team’s own analysis of climate variability in recent years suggests that villagers in the Activity ZOI indeed have been exposed to changing weather and rainfall patterns. The analysis of the last ten years of data from 2011 to the end of June 2022 did show an increasing delay in the start of the wet season though there is sufficient variability to not be able to definitively say seasons are changing. That said, in the 2021/22 wet season, effective rain10 did not start until January 2022 and the 2021 season had the smallest number of wet pentades (18) in any of the ten year reporting periods. The average number of wet pentades was 27 per year. In addition to the high level of variability in total annual rainfall in Subamwanga (which varied from 563 mm in 2021 to 1089mm in 2020, there is clear seasonality in the rainfall patterns with rain starting in the last quarter of the year (except 2021 as already indicated) followed by a variable wet season as shown below in Figure 9 and Figure 10. What does appear to be constant is a dry season in the middle of the year. Given the reduced rainfall in 2021, effects on outcomes such as tree-planting 9 These figures are also largely consistent with totals reported in the RNRG Year 3 Quarterly Report (July 2022). 10 The MTE conducted a pentade analysis dividing the rainfall into 73 five day periods (with one 6 day period to accommodate the leap year) and ascertain the number of periods where the sum of the rainfall in the period before, the actual period and the period after exceeded 40mm of rain. At this level the rainfall exceeds the evaporation so crop growth is not affected by drought. 31 may have occurred outside the control of the program. Figure 9. Monthly Rainfall in Sumbawanga District, 2017– 2021. Figure 10. Annual Rainfall in Sumbawanga District, 2012 – 2021. The RNRG activity should continue to draw on villager’s lived experiences in this respect to help sharpen and drive home their messaging regarding climate and its direct impacts on villages in Rukwa region and the types of mitigation and adaptation strategies that villagers can consider adopting to help lessen adverse impact in their communities (among which are several of the RNRG targeted activities). Community 32 members associate adaptations such as the use of modern stoves which use less firewood, reducing human impact to the environment. Also, some farmers have adapted their farming activities such as the use of short harvest maize seeds that mature more rapidly to cope with the shorter rain seasons. In KIIs with community CBWSO and WUAs in Nkasi district, they opined that the project should increase its tree planting activities to further help to stabilize the climate and reduce its environmental impacts. There is a need to be aware of misconceptions. The MTE team found misconceptions over climate change issues among some community members. For example, there is a sense that drying up of river channels is caused by children who fish in the river channel which is not allowed and prohibited by the community, as indicated in the following KII with CRP and VSLA members in Nkasi DC: “It is a local myth that catching fish from prohibited areas causes rains not to fall. It is a myth which isn’t scientifically true but, in a way, helps to reduce environmental destruction and protection of river resources for livelihoods....” Effectiveness of Multi-Pronged Approaches RNRG has used a range of different channels and formats for awareness-raising throughout the Activity villages. While it was outside the MTE team’s scope to consider the relative effectiveness of these different approaches, the combination of field observation, qualitative, and training survey data suggest that the public sensitization meetings and trainings RNRG held may have stronger effectiveness in achieving intended knowledge and awareness-raising objectives than paper-based education materials. Our analysis suggests physical meetings provide people with an opportunity to ask questions, obtain clarifications, and engage in deeper discussion and exchange on issues of interest. Sports bonanzas appear to have been well￾received and could have helped increase receptibility to messaging presented at public sensitization meetings. Overall, it is likely that RNRG’s multi-pronged approach helped ensure that messaging was accessible to, and effectively received, a range of intended demographics within the activity villages. CONCLUSIONS Overall findings for this evaluation question suggest that the approaches RNRG has adopted to raise community awareness on NRM and governance issues has generally been effective, while climate change awareness and SAM seems to be somewhat lower. The findings revealed that community awareness raising activities on NRM and governance has generally been effective through in and out of school meetings, public sensitization meetings, trainings, tree planting, signposts, sports bonanza and radio programs. The findings show that communities understand issues of climate variability, as they could witness the environmental impacts and effects on livelihoods in terms of variable rains and seasonal unpredictability causing longer dry spells and affecting agricultural productivity. Findings also indicate the significant contribution of SAM committees in providing awareness to the community on NRM and governance to the extent that villagers were able to question and make village authorities accountable and responsible to their duties. The awareness-raising strategies applied appear to have borne fruits with respect to educating community members across all dimensions, including students, youth, women, and the elderly. RNRG’s approach is also seen as contributing towards stronger community ownership of the initiative, while the multi-pronged media approach using radio campaigns, signposts, environmental clubs, and student’s awareness will help to strengthen overall sustainability of the messaging. There is a need, therefore, for the authorities to involve the communities in the initiatives, leadership, and benefits from the sustainability programs. 33 EQ5: How is LEAT performing in terms of organizational capacity and organizational collaboration internally and with its agreement partners? FINDINGS The MTE findings suggest that LEAT has made good progress in improving its own capacity and that of its sub-awardee, RUSUDEO, particularly taking into consideration that the RNRG activity is LEAT’s first direct USAID award. Early in the activity, LEAT made a dedicated effort to understand USAID IP requirements and specific elements of work planning that they had not previously been exposed to or had less familiarity with (such as results chains and situational analyses). In general, the staff has been commended for their efforts to learn and be responsive to USAID requirements and learn new skills. They are seen to be catching up well with respect to USAID data collection, quality expectations, and reporting requirements. Findings suggest there is room for improvement with respect to LEAT’s GIS and mapping capacity, data quality, and leveraging other USAID and USG resources in this domain, to improve their ability to undertake forest and biodiversity monitoring to USAID standards. LEAT can also work to improve their overall management capacity for USAID awards, including strengthening the quality and review of reports for USAID, and ensuring feedback is addressed. Some KII respondents also noted that LEAT did not initially have all of the expertise required for some aspects of the RNRG Activity implementation, such as GIS, town planning, or related elements of community development that are necessary to accomplish land use planning in villages. However, the activity brought on staff with the relevant skills. LEAT’s sub-awardee, RUSUDEO, also took a number of steps to increase their capacity, including updating their financial systems, administrative and cost-sharing modalities, improving their Data Quality Assessment skills, and undergoing training related to documentation, writing success stories, branding and reporting in-line with USAID requirements. According to KIIs with IPs, LEAT does not have an OCA conducted, but communicates directly with the AOR on capacity needs when issues arise. In LEAT’s experience, USAID has been able to provide assistance on particular capacity needs, when requested. For example, LEAT identified challenges related to insufficient transport and staffing early on in the project, and USAID was able to address those needs. LEAT’s sub-awardee, RUSUDEO, did have an OCA done in 2021. Once the OCA was completed, LEAT and RUSUDEO moved forward in developing a plan to support capacity building in the areas identified through the OCA. That support has primarily been focused on financial management and documentation, branding and marking, and MEL issues such as developing MEL plans, data quality assessment (DQA), and related USAID requirements. At the time of MTE data collection, RUSUDEO staff were participating in weekly online training to help support their capacity-building in these areas. It is noted that RUSUDEO does not have a dedicated Communications or MEL officer at the sub-awardee level, nor do they have sufficient activity resources to bring such staff on for this role. As a result, they are less capable in those areas and more reliant on LEAT for support to meet USAID requirements. The RNRG activity has also taken some steps to coordinate with or leverage activities from other donor￾supported activities in the area. One example is the IGA groups that LEAT is supporting, many of which were initially supported by previous donor activity through PATH. Another example is collaboration on messaging and awareness raising with Lishe Endelevu, another USAID-supported activity that has some thematic areas of intersection with RNRG on climate change and agricultural issues. Cooking exhibitions held by Lishe Endelevu within communities have utilized the majiko banifu that RNRG promoted in villages, and the activity has incorporated messaging around using less fuelwood and conserving the environment as part of its cooking exhibitions. 34 Key Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths include: ● Substantial prior experience implementing community-based conservation projects and related activity domains, such as establishing VICOBAs and empowering women and youth; ● Good collaboration and networks with Local Government Authorities, including village chairpersons and other non-governmental organizations that are active in the ZOI and have substantial experience in LUP and NRM; ● Committed, experienced and hardworking staff who are seen by community members as responsive and good listeners. In KIIs and FGDs with villagers, several respondents commented on the usefulness and practicality of the training and education that the activity has provided. ● Staff who are experienced in the NRM technical areas of the RNRG activity have familiarity with the RNRG activity Districts and communities and are generally well-regarded by the communities. All of this is seen as contributing to stronger implementation capacity and effectiveness. ● Working with youth from villages to accomplish some elements of the LUP and CCRO provisioning process, including their involvement in participatory land mapping through the MAST system. As one SAM member stated, “One thing that I like about LEAT, if they say that tomorrow we are coming to hold a meeting with you, then [you] know that it is true that they will come and you will have a discussion with them. And if anything went wrong, they will tell you.” – KII with SAM committee member, Sumbawanga District. Weaknesses or areas for improvement include: ● Delays or not always sharing timely activity progress reports with District Council stakeholders and relevant ministries. The MTE team suggests this should be done quarterly at a minimum; ● Sub-awardee reliance on LEAT for transport, which apparently requires sub-awardees to arrange their work schedules to fit with LEAT’s transport availability. This may also contribute to timing mismatches or delays for some activities; ● Insufficient budget for the growing list of needs that the RNRG activity work to date has highlighted as necessary to support longer-term objectives of the activity. Examples include support for the development of Village Forest Reserves and village infrastructure related to housing CCROs. ● To help strengthen ownership and build potential for sustainability for project activities and achievements over the longer term, there could be greater attention to building and maintaining relationships not only at the village and LGA levels but also at Regional and Ministry levels. CONCLUSIONS LEAT and its sub-awardee RUSUDEO have made good progress in improving their capacity to manage, implement, and meet USAID reporting requirements for the RNRG activity. While some areas still require capacity development, LEAT is coordinating its and RUSUDEOs work to improve performance and increase acceptance by the communities. 35 RECOMMENDATIONS The key findings and conclusions across the evaluation questions point to several recommendations for USAID and RNRG implementing partners to consider to strengthen the Activity’s ability to achieve its overall objectives. FOR RNRG ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS: EQ1: ● Develop specific timelines and dedicated planning with district and village authorities to complete the remaining processes in each village, to ensure that approved VLUPs are in place. o CCROs are distributed to villagers in all 18 villages by activity end. o Set time-bound objectives for VLUP implementation and set up an LGA monitoring system for reporting on progress. ● Work with District authorities to provide compensation to villagers who have given land for communal use as part of the VLUP process. Communicate the decisions on compensation and the justifications for the decisions to those who were not eligible for compensation. ● Given the RNRG activity is supporting the villages in LUP, which is a prerequisite for declaring a village forest as a village land forest reserve the activity should support villages and district councils to develop Forest Management Plans (FMP) and establish Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFRs). Developing forest management plans in the activity villages may be more effective for meeting forest conservation objectives over the longer terms than relying solely on forest bylaws developed via the LUPs. o The forest management plans should focus on non-consumptive activities that will incentivize the communities to protect the forests such as ecotourism and carbon trading. o Establish VLFRs to give communities greater control over the forest resources. Any revenue derived from their management efforts would strengthen community ownership over the forests and provide additional incentives to use and manage forests sustainably. EQ2: ● Provide additional training sessions on SAM to village leaders including VEOs, members of village councils and village committees. ● Consider ways to build more direct connections between SAMs and the district council, promoting official District Council recognition for the SAM Committees. ● Work with DEDs to clarify SAM roles and responsibilities, and clarify their authority with village leadership and resolve conflicts between the SAM committee and the village leaders. ● Provide the SAM committees with standard operating procedures and an easy-to-follow template for reporting SAM activities. ● In coordination with the LGAs form an arrangement where a proportion of revenues from fines are used to support SAM committee members with allowances, equipment or other needs, to ensure they have resources to perform their role without incurring out of pocket expenses. EQ3: ● Provide refresher trainings to RNRG activity ward and village community members on natural resource management and governance during the remaining period of performance. 36 ● Consider supporting and utilizing ward extension officers in the activity wards/villages to a greater extent, to help build sustainability of activities after Activity closes. ● Provide villagers with training and awareness raising on alternative energy sources besides charcoal and fuelwood. For addressing short term energy needs expand woodlots and fuel￾efficient stoves. ● Conduct research, outreach and technical support through government extension agents and other development partners to support viable alternative livelihood activities. o Form partnerships with private sector partners that may have solutions related to this on agricultural inputs, knowledge and implements for various climate-smart agricultural practices and market linkages to sectors that are less reliant on finite natural resources. ● Expand the focus on income generating activity (IGA) implementation in RNRG villages for the remaining life of the activity. Additional steps RNRG can take to help communities gain income while reducing pressure on natural resources include: o Scale-up promising activities, such as bustani jiko, effective agroforestry techniques, and modern beekeeping, to increase their potential for impact. o Introduce activities such as fish farming and planting cash crop fruit trees (such as mangos and avocados). o Explore a range of other IGA activities, drawing on regional best practices to help strengthen potential sustainability of project goals and ensure that community members do not revert to activities that are harmful to the environment. o To put IGAs on a stronger path to profitability, consider innovative ways to generate capital for and/or revenue from IGAs, including looking at how to bring in the private sector. o Consider new income generating opportunities related to alternative energy technologies as these alternatives are introduced; including installation and maintenance. ● For future tree planting activities, consider the following specific strategy modifications: o Obtain feedback from villagers on preferred tree species. o Conduct outreach with extension agents to ensure species are viable for the area. o Establish tree nurseries at village or ward level to ensure availability of tree seedlings and sustainability of tree planting activities. Plan appropriate timing of seed and seedling distribution to the growing season. Introduce irrigation for nurseries to ensure tree seedlings are available at the start of the wet season to allow the root systems to get established during the wet season. o Provide more education and training on appropriate tree planting techniques and seedling maintenance to help increase survivorship. o Bring in appropriate technical specialists and extension agents who have experience supporting villagers in this work. EQ4: ● Focus on strengthening environmental awareness in communities, including expanding the establishment of environmental clubs to all primary and secondary schools in the activity area. o Engage communities in dialogue on key environmental initiatives that can be community led e.g clean up communities. o Develop champions among the village leadership to help promote environmental awareness and encourage other village leadership to support such initiatives. ● Review the messaging and implementation of behavior change communication approaches with an aim towards designing an effective multi-pronged campaign. Targeted suggestions include: o Developing and distributing cartoon messaging and short, easy to digest leaflets o Simplify training manuals to be more accessible and audience appropriate. 37 o Increasing the frequency of radio sessions to at least one session per week. Also increase the coverage for radio broadcasts to include other stations across the region and improve consistency of timing of radio sessions. EQ5: ● To meet broader conservation objectives in the Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills, consider building stronger partnerships with other conservation-focused activities in the ZOI and leverage those partnerships to widen the conservation reach across the landscape o To further LEAT capacity development, continue collaboration with other USAID partners (e.g. Jane Goodall Institute, Landscape Conservation in Western Tanzania and Research Triangle International, Tuhifadhi Maliasili and US Forest Services) to improve GIS capability and forest and biodiversity monitoring. o Engage with other NGOs active in conservation activities in the Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills. ● Strengthen RUSUDEO capacity for monitoring and record keeping, ensuring that records and data are backed up to a server or cloud storage. ● Strengthen partnerships and communication with stakeholders at district, ward and village levels throughout the remaining life of the project. FOR USAID AND RNRG: ● Village infrastructure to store CCROs is lacking in many villages, and there is a need to upgrade village offices to adequately store CCROs to fulfill government requirements. The need to include support for upgrading village facilities for this purpose is also a lesson learned from previous USAID-supported LUP activities in other districts. USAID should consider providing funding for this as part of the CCRO provisioning activity, to help ensure the documents can be safely stored within the RNRG villages. ● Given broader conservation interests for Lyamba lya Mfipa Hills, consider other resource needs that may be required to enable RNRG to fulfill its activity mandates in the 18 Activity villages and potentially bring its activities to scale more widely in the two districts. Many respondents called for RNRG to expand to additional villages and the MTE team notes that the current project coverage of 18 villages constitutes a very small proportion of the total villages surrounding and engaging in the Lyamba Lya Mfipa Hills. To achieve broader conservation objectives for this resource, the RNRG activity coverage would likely need to be expanded to many more villages. Recognizing that this may not be feasible through a future USAID-supported activity, USAID and RNRG should also consider how to actively leverage partnerships with other conservation￾focused activities in the area to widen the conservation reach across the landscape. For instance, partnering with the upcoming World Bank biodiversity conservation supported project under the Vice President’s Office could be a potential entry point. 38 ANNEXES 39 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) (RNRG) Mid Term Evaluation Activity Name Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Implementer Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team -LEAT (and Rukwa Sustainable Development Organization -RUSUDEO) Agreement Number 72062120CA00002 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity (TEC) $2,883,989.44 Life of Activity March 6, 2020 - March 5, 2025. Active Geographic Regions Lyamba lya Mfipa hills covering 15 villages in the landscape in Sumbawanga and Nkasi districts councils. Development Objective(s) (DOs) Development Objective (DO) 3 USAID Office Economic Growth - Natural Resources Management (NRM) A/COR Jestina Kimbesa I. Background: On March 6, 2020, the Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT) launched the five-year (March 6, 2020-March 5, 2025) Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) activity funded through a cooperative agreement with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Tanzania. The Activity was designed to address the primary threats to biodiversity and build the resilience of communities and ecosystems in the Sumbawanga and Nkasi District Councils, Rukwa region. To achieve this goal RNRG focuses on the development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans; improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable; improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and increased community awareness on natural resources management and climate change. Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili in particular works to conserve land, wildlife, forests, and water resources and build the resilience of a cluster of 15 local communities and various ecosystems along the Lyamba lya Mfipa hills in Rukwa through improved natural resources governance. The selection of Lyamba lya Mfipa hills, as a site for the implementation of the activity, resonates around the richness of forests, wildlife, water, and land resources that, among many, are vulnerable to an alarming rate of extraction and exploitation (Figure 1). 40 Figure 1. Land cover map (2019) of the RNRG project scope area. The RNRG Intermediate Results include ● IR 1. Development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans ● IR 2. Improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable ● IR 3. Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and ● IR 4. Strengthen community awareness on natural resources management and climate change. RNRG Theory of Change (TOC) To be impactful, a biodiversity project must be based on a sound, accurate theory of change that clarifies the understanding and assumptions about how the strategy will lead to desired outcomes and reduce or mitigate the threat to target species and/or habitats. To clearly articulate the assumptions on how the selected strategies will lead to desired changes in threats to the selected conservation targets, the RNRG implementing partners developed theories of change for each of the selected strategies (i.e., Intermediate Results). LEAT used a results chain to articulate their assumptions as a series of causal statements that link expected intermediate results in an “if…then…” fashion. The results chains in effect represent the graphical interpretation of the project’s theory of change. This process helps clarify strategy assumptions and agree upon the Theories of Change behind each strategy. For the purpose of this evaluation SOW, the situation model for RNRG Activity is presented in Annex 1 to this SOW. 41 II. Statement of Purpose: The purpose of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) mid-term evaluation is to assess activity performance by LEAT, in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement (#72062120CA00002) and annual work plans. The evaluation will also report on the organizational capacity of LEAT to implement, monitor, and report on this activity. III. Uses and Users of the Evaluation: The results and findings from this evaluation of RNRG will be used to 1) document progress toward stated IR purposes; 2) identify assumptions or gaps in the IRs design and management approach, and 3) help inform course corrections for the remaining period of the RNRG activity. IV. Key Stakeholders: 1. USAID/Tanzania staff 2. LEAT/IP and RUSUDEO staff 3. Other Donors/Actors in this space. 4. Government officials in the region (i.e. Natural Resources Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner) and district councils 5. Government Institutions (TFS, NLUPC) 6. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism 7. Community members and local leaders in the project area 8. Private sector i.e. Foundation for Environmental and Economic Empowerment (FECEE). CSOs in the two districts that serve in NRM efforts in Rukwa? V. Evaluation Questions: The evaluation will need to examine progress over the four Intermediate Results (IRs), reviewing Key Areas (available in annex) in support of the IRs. The mid-term evaluation will seek to answer the following questions: 1. IR 1: To what extent is RNRG progressing on the development, approval, and implementation of inclusive Land Use Plans in the 15 villages? a. Where established, to what extent are communities accepting and owning Land Use Plans? Do community members understand that user rights and access, benefits, and livelihood opportunities are provided as a result of the implementation of land use planning? b. What benefits, if any, do community members with approved and implemented Land Use Plans report? If not approved, do community members report anticipated benefits from a Land Use Plan? (This question should examine how, if, at all, benefits contribute to an alleviation of poverty, empower local groups, promote conservation, and are youth and/or women benefiting economically from Land Use Plans). Additionally, is there a difference in how communities anticipate/report benefits between those villages with approved plans and those without? 2. IR 2: To what extent is RNRG increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources? 3. IR 3: To what extent is RNRG improving the capacity of communities and local government authorities to manage natural resources? 42 a. To what extent is RNRG supporting risk-reducing and environmental-friendly income￾generating activities? 4. IR 4: To what extent is RNRG raising community awareness on NRM and governance, Social Accountability Monitoring, and Climate Change through media, sports bonanzas, and Information Education and Communication (IEC) materials? 5. Capacity: How is LEAT performing in terms of organizational capacity and organizational collaboration internally and with its agreement partners? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization? Have they used the OCAT? What capacity gaps did it identify? If so, what adaptations have been applied to strengthen the organization and its partners? VI. Deliverables (proposed/illustrative timeline in annex 2): 1. Evaluation Work plan: Within two weeks of the award of the contract, a draft work plan for the evaluation including the proposed methodology shall be completed by the evaluation team and presented by the lead evaluator to the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; and (2) a list of the members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities. 2. Evaluation Design: Within one week of approval of the work plan, the evaluation team must submit to the AOR an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); and (4) known limitations to the evaluation design. USAID offices and relevant stakeholders will take up to five business days to review and consolidate comments through the AOR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised evaluation design and work plan within three days. 3. In-briefing / inception report: The evaluation team will have an in-briefing with the USAID (AOR plus other staff), for introductions and to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and/or to adjust the Statement of Work (SOW), if necessary. 4. Mid-term Briefing and Interim Meetings: The evaluation team is expected to hold a mid￾term briefing with the USAID AOR (and the Environment team depending on availability) on the status of the evaluation, including potential challenges and emerging opportunities. The team will also provide the evaluation AOR with periodic briefings and feedback on the team’s findings, as agreed upon during the in-briefing. If desired or necessary, weekly briefings by phone can be arranged. 5. Final Exit Briefing: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final exit briefing to discuss the status of data collection and preliminary findings. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the in-briefing. 6. Final Presentation: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation in person/by virtual conferencing software to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations to USAID. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the in-briefing. 43 7. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers having a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, the USAID Environment Team will have 10 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the AOR will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked to submit a revised final draft report within five business days hence, and again the USAID Environment team will review and send comments on this final draft report within five business days of its submission. 8. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than three business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the USAID Environment team. The evaluation team leader will then submit the final report (In both Word and PDF format (for publishing) and a two-page fact sheet summarizing major highlights from the report) to the AOR. All project data and records will be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in an easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. SOW Annex 1: Intermediate Results (IRs) with their respective Key Results Areas (KRA) Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans: Key Result Area (KRA) 1.1. Communities are engaged in developing and implementing NRM governance tools: 1.1 Facilitate the development of inclusive Land Use Plans (LUPs) for improved natural resources management and governance 1.2 Facilitate issuance of CCROs for improved natural resources governance and tenure security 1.3 Facilitate villagers to promulgate comprehensive village by-laws on natural resources management 1.4 Organize engagement meetings with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Development Settlements (MLHHDS) and National Land-use Planning Commission (NLUPC) 1.5 Learning visit at the Feed the Future-Tanzania Land Tenure Assistance Activity on Land administration models 1.6 Learning visit at the Landscape Conservation in Western Tanzania Activity on Land administration models 1.7 Inter-district land conflict resolution Intermediate Result (IR) 2: Improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable: Key Result Area (KRA) 2.1. The capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources strengthened: 2.1 Capacity building training to Village Councils, Village Land Councils, Village Natural Resources Committees, and influential villagers on Social Accountability Monitoring (SAM) 2.2 Capacity building training to 26 District Environment and Natural Resources Officers (DENROs) on Social Accountability Monitoring 44 2.3 Capacity building training to 40 members of Ward Tribunals on SAM 2.4 Capacity building training to 5 sub-awardee staff, Ward officials (5 Ward Education Coordinators, 5 Ward Executive Officers, 5 Ward Community Development Officers), and 2 Division officers on SAM 2.5 SAM workshop to 73 Ward Councilors from Nkasi and Sumbawanga district 2.6 Conduct SAM workshop to 40 members of WUAs and 105 members of CBWSOs 2.7 2.7 Train 600 Villagers on Social Accountability Monitoring (SAM) 2.8 2.8 Conduct 30 community sensitization meetings (15 in school and 15 in public) on Social Accountability Monitoring 2.9 Facilitate the formation and coaching of 15 SAM teams to conduct SAM exercises, and 2.10 Facilitate SAM teams to conduct feedback-sharing meetings on SAM teams’ findings to government officials Intermediate Result (IR) 3: Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to manage natural resources: Key Result Area (KRA) 3.1: Capacity of LGAs and communities on natural resources management built: 3.1.1 Capacity building training to Village Councils, Village Land Councils, Village Natural Resources Committees and influential villagers on NRM and governance 3.1.2 Capacity building training to 26 District Environment and Natural Resources Officers (DENROs) on NRM and governance 3.1.3 Capacity-building training to 40 members of Ward Tribunals on NRM 3.1.4 Capacity building training to 5 sub-awardee staff, Ward officials (5 Ward Education Coordinators, 5 Ward Executive Officers, 5 Ward Community Development Officers, and 2 Division officers on NRM 3.1.5 NRM workshop to 73 Ward Councilors from Nkasi and Sumbawanga districts. 3.1.6 NRM workshop to 40 members of WUAs and 105 members of CBWSOs 3.1.7 Train 600 Villagers on natural resources management and governance Key Result Area (KRA) 3.2: Culture of communities to implement risk-reducing practices and environmental-friendly income-generating activities to improve resilience to climate change embraced 3.2.1 Conduct 30 (15 in school and 15 public) community sensitization meetings on climate change, natural resources management, and governance in each project village through theater for development performances 3.2.2 Support existing community groups on income-generating activities that are environmental￾friendly for improved household income 3.2.3 Capacity building trainings to income-generating groups on entrepreneurial skills 3.2.4 Facilitate communities to protect and conserve natural resources through planting environmental-friendly trees to mitigate climate change, and 3.2.5 Facilitate communities to implement improved energy-saving stoves 45 Intermediate Result (IR) 4: Strengthen community awareness of natural resources management and climate change: Key Result Area (KRA) 4.1: Raise community awareness on NRM and governance, Social Accountability Monitoring, and Climate Change through media, sports bonanzas, and Information Education and Communication (IEC) materials: 4.1.1 Follow-up and documentation of project implementation results 4.1.2 Use sports bonanzas and conservation cinemas to deliver to the communities on NRM, SAM, and LUPs 4.1.3 Produce and disseminate newspaper feature articles 4.1.4 Air out TV/Radio programs 4.1.5 Development and publication of training manuals on NRM (forest, wildlife, minerals, and water), land governance, and Social Accountability Monitoring 46 SOW ANNEX 2: SITUATION MODEL FOR THE RNRG ACTIVITY (TAKEN FROM THE RNRG MEL PLAN) 47 SOW ANNEX 3: EVALUATION TIMELINE Presented below is the proposed evaluation schedule. The evaluation team should carefully consider the availability and participation of the RNRG staff, local villages, and local government offices. Local and national holiday schedules should be consulted prior to fixing the evaluation schedule. In addition, COVID restrictions could adversely affect evaluation participation, both from the evaluation team and the evaluation participants. Illustrative Schedule Timing Proposed Activities Important Considerations/Constraints 5 days Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design - 5 days USAID review of the work plan and evaluation design Take into account available in the Mission OU 2-3 days Piloting and re-adjustment of data collection tools, - 4 days Travel and preparations for data collection Take into account visa requirements if any expatriates form part of the evaluation teams 1 day In-Briefing Take into account holiday schedule 25 days Data Collection Take into account any Tanzanian holidays, both national and local Also factor in any COVID related delays 4 days Data Analysis - 5 days Report writing - 10 days USAID review of Draft Report Take into account available in the Mission OU 5 days Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report - 48 SOW ANNEX 4: PROPOSED EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The Evaluation Team shall consist of four professionals each with a minimum of 7 years of experience in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management and governance programming in East African countries, preferably in Tanzania. ● The required areas of subject matter expertise that should be represented on the team correspond to the technical foci and implementation context of RNRG Activity ● Biodiversity and forest conservation implementation models in low-income countries. ● Implementation of livelihoods programs linked to land use planning, against natural resource management and biodiversity conservation framework. ● Knowledge of alternative enterprise development (including incentive programs) and capacity to support sustainable models in conservation programs. ● Knowledge of local government structures and capacities to support NRM ● Solid technical background in land use planning at village and district levels. ● Knowledge of sustainability issues at local, national, and regional levels with stakeholders; and ● Gender equality and women’s empowerment. ● Knowledge of public participation, accountability, and transparency All team members must have a proven ability to interact with people from different social and economic backgrounds and possess excellent writing and presentation skills. The team will have combined skills and experience in rapid appraisal methodologies (interviews, focus groups, etc.), institutional analysis, and strong knowledge of Tanzania and political processes. All team members must be willing and able to travel to the RNRG landscape. All members of the team should be fluent in Swahili. The Team composition is suggested as follows: 1. Team Leader – The team leader will serve as the primary point of contact between the USAID/Tanzania Mission and the Evaluation Team. The candidate must: a. Have strong evaluation experience. b. Have a proven track record in terms of leadership, coordination, and evaluation delivery for development projects and programs. c. Have excellent writing/organizational skills and proven ability to deliver a quality written product (Evaluation Report and PowerPoint). d. Have a strong understanding of Tanzania’s environmental sector. e. Have at least 7 years of experience as an evaluation specialist with specific experience with USAID projects In addition, the Team Leader should offer substantial expertise in two or three required subject matter expertise areas listed above. The Team Leader will have primary responsibility for ensuring the final deliverables are completed in a timely manner and are responsive to the scope of work and Mission comments. 49 2. Additional Technical Expertise – To complement the technical expertise of the team leader, three Tanzanians will be recruited for the evaluation team. At a minimum, it is expected that these individuals will contribute particular subject matter expertise in Tanzanian policies, programs, and regulations related to the environmental sector. Possible subject matter expertise shall include specialists in land use planning, governance, local government structure and function, biodiversity, NRM, social scientist, and economic alternatives for rural communities. 3. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. 50 ANNEX 2: MTE DESIGN DOCUMENT USAID/Tanzania Data for Development Project MID-TERM EVALUATION DESIGN AND WORK PLAN USIMAMIZI ENDELEVU WA MALIASILI RESILIENT NATURAL RESOURCES GOVERNANCE (RNRG) Prepared by Data for Development Contract No. AID-OAA-1-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 March 2022 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development Tanzania Mission (USAID/Tanzania). 51 DESIGN AND WORK PLAN USIMAMIZI ENDELEVU WA MALIASILI (RNRG) Mid-Term Evaluation USAID/Tanzania Data for Development Project Submission Date: March 2022 Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Activity Start Date and End Date: March, 2022 – July, 2022 COR Name: Michael McBroom Alt COR: Nathan Tenney Prepared by: Jacob Laden, Evaluation Advisor, Data for Development, NORC Bahati Tenga, Evaluation Specialist, Data for Development, NORC Submitted by: David Hughes, Chief of Party ME&A (Mendez England & Associates) 4300 Montgomery Ave. Suite 103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: Email: DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 52 ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AOR/COR Agreement/Contract Office Representative CBWSOs Community Based Water Supply Organizations CSOs Civil Society Organization DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DIS Development Information Solution DENROs District Environmental and Natural Resources Officers DPs Development Partners FBD Forest and Beekeeping Division FECEE Foundation for Environment and Community Economic Empowerment FGDs Focus Group Discussions GoT Government of Tanzania GIs Group Interviews GIS Geographical Information System IGA Income Generating Activity IP Implementing Partner IRB Institutional Review Board IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KIIs Key Informant Interviews LEAT Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team LGA Local Government Authorities LoE Level of Effort MAST Mobile Application Secure Tenure NLUPC National Land Use Planning Commission NRMs Natural Resource Monitors RUSUDEO Rukwa Sustainable Development Organization RNRG Resilience Natural Resource Governance SFTP Secure File Transfer Protocol TFS Tanzania Forest Services USAID United State Agency for International Development 53 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION On March 6, 2020, the Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT) launched the five-year (March 6, 2020-March 5, 2025) Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG11) activity funded through a cooperative agreement with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Tanzania. The activity was designed to address the primary threats to biodiversity and build the resilience of communities and ecosystems in the Sumbawanga and Nkasi District Councils, Rukwa region. To achieve this goal RNRG focuses on the development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans; improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable; improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and increased community awareness on natural resources management and climate change. Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili in particular works to conserve land, wildlife, forests, and water resources and build the resilience of a cluster of 15 local communities and various ecosystems along the Lyamba lya Mfipa hills in Rukwa through improved natural resources governance. The selection of Lyamba lya Mfipa hills, as a site for the implementation of the activity, resonates around the richness of forests, wildlife, water, and land resources that, among many, are vulnerable to an alarming rate of extraction and exploitation (Figure 1). Figure 1. Rukwa Land Map of the RNRG Project Area. 11 RNRG stands for Resilience Natural Resources Governance. 54 The RNRG Intermediate Results include ● IR 1. Development and implementation of inclusive land-use plans. ● IR 2. Improved capacity of communities to hold institutions entrusted with managing natural resources accountable. ● IR 3. Improved capacity of communities and local government authorities to holistically manage natural resources; and ● IR 4. Strengthen community awareness on natural resources management and climate change. 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) mid-term evaluation is to assess activity performance by LEAT, in accordance with Cooperative Agreement (#72062120CA00002) and annual work plans. The evaluation will also report on the organizational capacity of LEAT to implement, monitor, and report on this activity. The evaluation aims to: ● Provide evidence and learning on the extent to which implementation of the RNRG activity adheres to planned implementation and is on track to achieve its objectives; ● Identify issues and challenges that implementers’ may have faced, including underlying assumptions within the activity’s theory of change, implementation challenges, unintended consequences, and lessons learned ● Assess overall success, challenges, and constraints with activity implementation to date, and recommend any changes, if necessary, to ensure that activity objectives can be achieved ● Identify actionable recommendations that implementers can use to make course corrections as the activity moves forward 3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation will need to examine progress over the four Intermediate Results (IRs), review key areas in support of the IRs and assess the institutional capacity gap to implement, monitor, and report on this activity. The mid-term evaluation will seek to answer the following questions:12 1. IR 1: To what extent is RNRG progressing on the development, approval, and implementation of inclusive Land Use Plans in the 15 villages? a. What was the process by which Land Use Plans were developed with regional and district￾level stakeholders and in communities, and to what extent did it adhere to national and district guidelines? Was everyone in the community able to participate who wanted to (focus particularly on women, youth, farmers, pastoralists or agro-pastoralists? other potentially disenfranchised groups)? For people who did not participate, what were the main reasons why? 12 The header questions will be answered and some, but not all sub-questions will be answered. 55 b. Where established, to what extent are communities accepting and taking ownership of Land Use Plans? Do community members understand the anticipated benefits of land use planning, such as clarified land access and use rights, reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain CCROs, potential for new livelihood opportunities and improved environment and natural resources? In what ways are community members changing their own land use behavior as a result of the land use plans, and what are the reasons why? c. What benefits, if any, do community members report with approved and implemented Land Use Plans? (This question should examine how, if, at all, benefits contribute to an alleviation of poverty, empower local groups, promote conservation, and enable youth, women, and other sub-groups of interest to benefit economically from Land Use Plans). Additionally, is there a difference in how communities anticipate/report benefits between those villages with approved plans and those without? If yes, what are the reasons why, and what lessons can be learned from this? d. What key issues and challenges have implementers faced in implementing VLUPs, and how have they dealt with these challenges? What are lessons learned to date, and what steps have implementers taken to overcome these challenges? 2. IR 2: To what extent is RNRG increasing the capacity of communities to actively engage in demanding accountability of institutions entrusted with the mandate to manage natural resources? 3. IR 3: To what extent is RNRG improving the capacity of communities and local government authorities to manage natural resources? a. To what extent is RNRG supporting risk-reducing and environmental-friendly income￾generating activities? 4. IR 4: To what extent is RNRG raising community awareness on NRM and governance, Social Accountability Monitoring, and Climate Change through media, sports bonanzas, and Information Education and Communication (IEC) materials? 5. How is LEAT performing in terms of organizational capacity and organizational collaboration internally and with its agreement partners? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization? Have they used the OCAT? What capacity gaps did it identify? If so, what adaptations have been applied to strengthen the organization and its partners? 4. USES AND USERS OF THE EVALUATION The results and findings from this evaluation of RNRG will be used to 1) document progress toward stated IR purposes; 2) identify assumptions or gaps in the IRs design and management approach, and 3) help inform course corrections for the remaining period of the RNRG activity. 56 5. KEY STAKEHOLDERS Key Stakeholders: 1. USAID/Tanzania staff – AoR, and NRM staff 2. LEAT/IP and RUSUDEO staff 3. Other IPs partners including (FtF Land Tenure Assistance, JGIs, and Tettratec) 4. Other Donor/Actors in this space – International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – Tanzania Program, 5. Government officials in the region (i.e., Natural Resources Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner) and district councils – District Environmental and Natural Resources Officers (DENROs); 6. Government Institutions – Tanzania Forest Services (TFS) at National and District Level, National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC) 7. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism – Planning Department and Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD) 8. Community members and local leaders in the project area Community members including Villagers who participate in the project; Village representatives from Water User Associations (WUAs), Community Based Water Supply Organizations (CBWSOs), and Income Generating Activities (IGA). Others include Village Social Accountability Monitoring Committees (SAMs Committees). Also, Natural Resources Monitors (NRMs); and Environmental Teachers and Heads of Primary and Secondary schools. Local leaders include Ward Tribunals, Ward Councilors (WCs), Ward Executive Officers (WEOs) or Ward Education Coordinators (WEC), Village land committees; Village NRM Committees, and/or Village Environmental Committees. 9. Private sector i.e., Foundation for Environmental and Economic Empowerment (FECEE), Chemchem FM, and TCCIA 10. CSOs/ actors in this space in Rukwa region including Save the Children, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and MIICO 6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation will apply both qualitative and quantitative methods provide to obtain answers to the key evaluation questions. This mixed methods approach will entail a review of available secondary data including background documents and analysis of activity performance monitoring data; and collect primary data through key informant interviews (KIIs), group interviews (GIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs), to assess the performance of the program across objectives and activity areas. Given the improvement of the current COVID Situation in the country, the primary data collection will be done in-person to allow this midterm evaluation to benefit from direct interaction with community￾level stakeholders and Government officials. , This face-to-face approach will adhere to the USAID COVID safety precautions protocol including social distancing, gathering in open space with a limited number of participants and the use of PPE will be deployed. Online interviews via Zoom conference call will be conducted with participants of KIIs, particularly at the National level should their preference be to participate in data collection activity virtually. The proposed approaches for the various evaluation questions are summarized in Table 1. This will include: 57 ● Desk review and review of program performance data; this will include a review of RNRG annual and quarterly reports, activity monitoring data, baseline or any other targeted studies that have been conducted to date, gender analyses, other program documents, and existing literature on land conservation and natural resource governance in the two activity districts, Rukwa region, and Tanzania more generally. The desk review will assist in understanding the performance of the program and the surrounding context and environmental factors contributing to natural resources and biodiversity conservation in the activity implementation area. So far, the team has received 9 docs out of 32 in the proposed checklist. A full checklist of proposed documentation for this evaluation will provide further detail on documents received and those that are still pending from the IP or USAID Mission. Other documents will be included on a rolling basis from recommendations of KII participants and others. o The team is expecting to receive performance data going back to the start of the program, March 6th, 202013 to the Present. This will be reviewed and will be used for trend analysis and visualization across indicators. ● Key Informant Interviews and GIs – 36 KIIs/GIs will be conducted to the stakeholders at National, Districts and Community levels, these includes the following: ● KIIs and GIs at the national, regional, district, and with other key stakeholders in the space across 2 districts of Sumbawanga and Nkasi in Rukwa region, as well as selected key informants in Dar es Salaam and Dodoma (for National interviews). ● The KIIs stakeholders include IP - LEAT/RUSUDEO, USAID Staff- EG/NRM teams, USAID IPs partners, DPs /Actors (incl. CSOs and Private sector actors) working directly in NRM and Land Use Plan in the implementation area, and Government officials at the ministry, agencies, regional, and district level. ● The Group Interviews (GI) will be conducted at the district level, drawing upon the representatives from various district councils that form the District Environmental Natural Resource Officers (DENROs), to learn about their engagement in the activity and collect their views on the performance of the project’s interventions. Also, through group interviews, participants of training will answer a limited set of structured questions related to the training and other capacity enhancement interventions they have received from RNRG. In addition, the team will conduct GIs with selected representatives from ward tribunals to capture information related to land conflicts and records that will reveal the changes over time on conflict management and resolution, which can be attributed to the development of the land-use plan. A total of 2 GIs with representatives of ward tribunals will be reached, one per district. Furthermore, the team will conduct GIs with Natural Resource Monitoring Volunteers from 5 communities that have begun the monitoring work in their communities, to get their experience on the use of Mobile Application Secure Tenure (MAST) technology, and its benefit to the community and biodiversity. Lastly, GI with headteachers and selected teachers facilitating environmental activities in a selected primary school and secondary school to learn about in-school sensitization meetings conducted to enhance the culture of communities to implement risk-reduction practices and environmentally friendly income-generating activities to improve resilience to climate change. 13 Performance data is available starting in quarter 3 of FY2020 58 ● Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) – Six FGDswill be conducted with representatives of three groups of community members who interface with the project, drawing respondents across all clusters of 15 communities to include. 1. Village social accountability and monitoring committees (SAM) committees were formed to conduct social accountability monitoring 2. Water User Associations (WUAs) and Community Based Water Supply Organizations (CBWSOs) manage the water as a resource in the catchment areas and 3. Representatives of villagers trained on natural resources management and governance. These include the established Income Generating Activities (IGA) groups to understand the alternative livelihoods activities and their performance. ● Selection of qualitative data collection sites at the community level – With the support from IP (LEAT), the team will identify one site in the Nkasi district council and another site in the Sumbawanga district council, to get closer to the communities within the activity implementation area where GIs and FGDs will be organized. The community site selection considers accessibility for the participants in reaching the meeting places, and ensuring the MTE remains within the activity culture of engaging the communities in their own localities. ● Field Observation – Using a specific observation checklist form, the evaluation team will gather data from observing natural resources, land cover, people’s activities, and their behavior in their natural setting. In the observation, the team will take photos of issues to complement the broader picture of data visualization using GIS. Spot checks will be done on the sites for the data collections and in the places following the primary information we gather FGDs and GIs mainly for verification and/or data triangulation. This will be used to verify and get a visual picture of issues raised in the KIIs/GI and FGDs and not to identify change. GPs coordinates and photos will be taken, in conjunction with GIS and satellite images. ● Use of Geographic Information System (GIS) – A multilevel Geographic Information System based on Remote Sensing and GIS methods will be established to assess data (Qualitative, Quantitative, and Spatial data) by observing natural resources, land cover, people’s activities with a collection of GPS points for ground-truthing. A cross-analysis will be done between the thematic maps (Land cover and land use) and field data (GPS) to examine the relationship between natural conditions and land use. ● Training Survey – An electronic self-administered survey and/or Computer Assisted Telephonic Interview (CATI) survey of trained participants directly trained under the program. These participants include DENROs at councils. At the community level, training participants including members of Ward Tribunals, Village Committees, and other groups in the community were formed, trained in natural resource management, and are engaging in the project. o The total of 1875 participants reported being trained as of quarter one of 2022. To achieve a 95% confidence level and 5% margin error we will target a random sample of 319 respondents; If for some reason we are not able to reach above the threshold, we will target a minimum of 237 respondents to reach a 90% confidence level. o Actual Sampling (TBD) - Survey sampling will be based on the contact list provided by LEAT and will draw upon all valid contacts. The survey sampling could be a stratified 59 sample or census depending on the total participants with contacts (Email and/or phone numbers). o Survey Participants: The following groups of trainees will be reached through the survey; DENROs and members of Ward tribunals, Division and Ward Leaders incl WEOs, VEOs, Ward Extension Officers, Village committees (Land committees, Natural Resource Management Committees; Environmental Committees; Water Committees) and Village committees involved in SAM, and other actors in the space ● Review of the previous OCA – The evaluation team understands that Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) was conducted at the beginning of the activity. Through KIIs with the project staff, we will explore how the OCA process and results were used to build capacity and enable the IP to adapt as an organization to better achieve activity objectives. The Evaluation team will also identify any remaining gaps in the organization’s capacity in terms of management, governance, and financial sustainability, and the collaboration with Sub awardees 60 Table 1: Approaches and Methods Mapping of Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Assessment Questions / Intermediate Results Analysis Approach Data Sources AQ1/IR1 AQ2/IR2 AQ3/IR3 AQ4/IR4 AQ5 Planned Analysis KRA 1.1 KRA 2.1 KRA 3.1 KRA 3.2 KRA 4.1 OCA Desk review of background documents Program description; Annual work plans; Quarterly and annual reports; Monitoring, evaluation, and learning (ME&L) plans; Technical reports and presentations. Other relevant documentation X X X X X X Systematic Review KIIs with USAID KIIs with USAID Tanzania Mission Staff (AoR) and Natural Resource Team X X X X X X Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)/ Group Interview (GI) with PI - LEAT and RUGUSERO and Partners Ips Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with LEAT and RUSUDEO X X X X X X Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with Partners Ips Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with DAI - LTA, JGI, TETRATEC X - - - - X Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis 61 Mapping of Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Assessment Questions / Intermediate Results Analysis Approach Data Sources AQ1/IR1 AQ2/IR2 AQ3/IR3 AQ4/IR4 AQ5 Planned Analysis KRA 1.1 KRA 2.1 KRA 3.1 KRA 3.2 KRA 4.1 OCA KIIs with Donors / Actors in space KIIs with Donors implementing NRM in Rukwa include. IUNC; Actors including CSOs - Save the Children, WCS, MIICO; Community Radio Chemchem FM, and FECEE X X X X X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis KII with Government Institutions (TFS, NLUPC) KII with National Leve Institutions, Tanzania Forest Services (TFS), and National Land Use Plan Committee (NLUPC) X X X - - - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis KIIs/GI with Government Officials: Regional and Districts Level Government Officials- Regional Level incl. the Natural Resource Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner. Districts Level incl. DENROs, DC, TFS Offices District Environment and Natural Resource Officers X X X X X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis KII with Ministry of Natural Resource Management KII with Policy and Planning and Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD) - X X - - - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis 62 Mapping of Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Assessment Questions / Intermediate Results Analysis Approach Data Sources AQ1/IR1 AQ2/IR2 AQ3/IR3 AQ4/IR4 AQ5 Planned Analysis KRA 1.1 KRA 2.1 KRA 3.1 KRA 3.2 KRA 4.1 OCA KII/GI with Local Leaders KII with Local Leaders including Ward Councilors; Ward Tribunals; Ward Executive Officer (WEOs) X X X X X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis GIs with Natural resource monitors (NRMs) - X - X X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis GIs with Head Teachers and Environmental Teachers for Secondary and Primary schools - X - - X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis FGDs with community people interface with the project FGDs at Community Level - SAM committees, WUAs, CBWSOs, IGA groups X X - X X - Qualitative coding in Dedoose for qualitative analysis Performance data from IP and in USAID databases Project Data: KPIs and MUST data; USAID Databases: IPRS, DIS X X - X X - Trend analysis of descriptive statistics on performance data and context factors from secondary data. 63 Mapping of Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Assessment Questions / Intermediate Results Analysis Approach Data Sources AQ1/IR1 AQ2/IR2 AQ3/IR3 AQ4/IR4 AQ5 Planned Analysis KRA 1.1 KRA 2.1 KRA 3.1 KRA 3.2 KRA 4.1 OCA Survey of training participants 14– DENROs and members of Ward tribunals, Division and Ward Leaders, Village committees and Village groups, and other actors in the space Using Data set of training participants with contact information to be provided by IP (LEAT) - X - X - - Descriptive statistics 14 Depends on a detailed listing with contacts and/or phone numbers Table 2: Estimated KIIs, GIs and FGDs per District Site Selection National: Dar/ Dodoma Rukwa Region Total Nkasi DC Sumbawanga DC KIIs/GIs *totals based on estimates USAID Mission- AoR and Natural Resource Team X - - 2 LEAT X - - 1 Sub awardee RUSUDEO - X 1 Partners IPs DAI- LTA, JGI, D4D X - - 3 Donors implementing NRM in Rukwa include. IUNC; Actors including CSOs -Save the Children, WSC, Tetratec; Community Radio - Chemchem FM, and FECEE - X 6 Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism (MNRT) - Policy and Planning and Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD) X - - - - 2 National Leve Institutions - Tanzania Forest Services (TFS) and National Land Use Plan Committee (NLUPC) X - - - - 2 Government Officials￾Regional Level incl. Regional Commissioner, Natural Resource Department, Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner - 3 3 Site Selection National: Dar/ Dodoma Rukwa Region Total Nkasi DC Sumbawanga DC KIIs and GIs – At the district and community level Government Officials - Districts Level incl. KIIs with TFS Offices, GI with District Environment and Natural Resource Officers (DENROs), Heads of Departments (Planning, Law, Land, Beekeeping, Community Development, Livestock, Environment, Water, Agriculture. - 1+1 1+1 2+2 GIs with Ward Tribunals. - 1 1 2 GIs with Natural Resource Monitors (NRMs) - 1 1 2 GI with Head Teachers and Environmental Teachers for Secondary and Primary schools - 1 1 2 Total KIIs and GIs - - - 32 FGDs SAM Committees (villagers trained) - 1 1 2 WUAs and CBWSOs - 1 1 2 IGA groups - 1 1 2 Other villagers- general community (M and F) - 2 2 4 Total FGDs - - - 10 TARGET TOTAL <40 6.1Qualitative Analysis Qualitative tools and analysis for the KIIs and document review will be structured around themes related to the 5 evaluation questions and program objectives. These themes will be mapped to key excerpts in the text from KII, GI, and FGDs transcripts and documents and will be triangulated across sources for analysis and reporting of findings. Interviews will be analyzed using Dedoose software and will be triangulated with other data sources obtained for this evaluation. Grounded coding will be conducted using a coding frame which will be tagged to excerpts in the translated interview transcripts to capture recurring themes, examples, and key quotes. Exports of content by theme will be used to capture the most salient themes, their stakeholder groups, and location/region to provide more rigorous detail using this qualitative approach. 6.2 Consent and Protection of Privacy The Evaluation Team plans to fully comply with all human protection requirements for this evaluation. NORC’s organizational procedures require that all data collection projects are submitted to NORC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). NORC’s IRB has extensive experience performing ethical reviews of domestic and international studies. Informed consent is an integral part of the IRB review. The Evaluation Team will devise consent scripts and procedures that fit the various data collection modes proposed for this study namely FGDs, GIs, and KIIs. These consent scripts will be written in clear and understandable language and outline the funding and purpose of the study, the data collection parameters (duration, voluntary nature, process), any potential risks and benefits of participation, the confidentiality of the data provided, and the points of contact to reach for questions. Verbal consent will be obtained for all phone and online KIIs and GIs. Data Security: In terms of data confidentiality and security, the use of encrypted computer storage will be mandated to store notes, recordings, and FGD primary data. Furthermore, all primary data transfers between sites and team members will take place via Data for Development’s internal SharePoint folders and/or secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). Once transferred, the data will be stored on secure servers. 7. TIMELINE AND DELIVERABLES Key deliverables and estimated timeline: ● Draft and Final Workplan and Design – March-April 2022 ● Team contracting and mobilization – April 2022 ● Instrument development and programming – April-May 2022 ● IRB with NORC (National IRB - TBD) – April-May 2022 ● Data collection – May-June 2022 ● Analysis – July 2022 ● Preliminary results- July August (TBD) ● Draft report – August 2022 ● Draft Report Review Complete – August 2022 ● Final report – September 2022 ● Presentation and workshop. September 2022-TBD based on Mission availability. 8. PROPOSED STAFFING Data for Development has selected an experienced team to conduct the evaluation. This includes: Team Lead, Lauren Persha, PhD will serve as the team lead responsible for all draft and final deliverables. Persha is an NRM Expert with extensive experience working in natural resource management, participatory village land use planning and land conservation in Tanzania and the E Africa Region. She has extensive experience conducting quantitative surveys and qualitative efforts in Tanzania in these sectors. In addition: ● From 2017-2021, she was the principal investigator and team lead for an impact evaluation of USAID’s Land Tenure Assistance activity in Iringa District, Tanzania, and also led a mixed methods targeted study on the role of customary land formalization in strengthening women’s economic empowerment in rural villages in Iringa District. ● In 2015, she co-designed a forest livelihoods household survey module and qualitative discussion guide for the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Surveys, and led the fieldwork to pilot the survey module and qualitative instrument in Tanzania (Kilwa and Lushoto Districts); ● During 2011-2015, she led a 3ie-funded impact evaluation of Tanzania’s joint forest management policy to measure impacts on livelihoods, governance, and forest conditions across 110 villages and associated forest reserves. ● Before that she spent five years in integrated conservation and development program implementation based in Tanzania for a UNDP-Global Environment Facility project that piloted the implementation of decentralized forest policies in villages and forest reserves in Kenya, Tanzania (Same, Monduli and Bukoba Districts), and Uganda (1998 – 2003); ● Her research has been published in journals such as Conservation Biology, Forest Policy and Economics, Global Environmental Change, World Development, and Science, and in 3ie’s Impact Evaluation Report series. She holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Science and is fluent in Swahili. Subject Matter Expert, Idi Mwanyoka (Ph.D) – Subject matter expert for support on desk review, data collection, analysis, and report writing. Iddi Mwanyoka has several years of experience in carrying out studies and consultancies in the areas of natural resource management, landscape management, and community livelihoods across Tanzania. In his carrier, he has worked with international conservation and development organizations including UNDP, WWF, and Care International in Tanzania as a natural resource and sustainable land management expert. Dr. Mwanyoka was one of the forerunners of the innovative Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) projects in Tanzania, piloted within the Eastern Arc Mountains, notably the Uluguru and East Usambara Mountains. The assignment gave him an opportunity to interact with the local communities, thus gaining immense experience in research and awareness of local knowledge especially those related to the dynamics of natural resource management interventions. ● Currently, Mwanyoka is a Lecturer at the University of Dodoma in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies where he teaches a range of courses including Natural Resource Assessment and Policy, Environmental Conservation, Disaster Management, and Climate change. ● He holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis and Programme Management obtained from Ardhi University in Tanzania; a Master of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and a bachelor’s degree in Geography and Environment studies. Subject Matter Expert - Dominico Kilemo (Ph.D.) - Subject matter expert with professional and technical experience in natural resource management, sustainable forest management, Land Use Plan, Social and Environmental Impact Assessment, Waste Management, and Climate Change Issues. Dominico is a national consultant with over 12yrs of experience in conducting project design, evaluation, assessment, research, and other studies. In the past year (2020-2021), Dominico led a significant number of evaluations commissioned by Development Partners, NGOs, and Government Agencies working in the sector, to include: ● End line evaluation of community resilience on climate change adaptation. ● Final evaluation of the thriving environmental and well-being of people in Eastern Africa sustainable forest program. ● A consultancy of market and value chain study for major mangrove and non-mangrove projects in Rufiji Delta, ● A study on challenges of community-based forest management in Tanzania, commissioned by Tanzania Forest Conservation Group/ MJUMITA. ● As a subject matter specialist in gender and climate change policy analysis, he got commissioned to develop institutional gender policy and gender guideline programs on climate change in the country. And engaged in the team of consultants who conducted baseline study for youth engagement in climate change project in Korogwe and Handeni district council. Dominic demonstrates the good experience of working with Government Institutions from the National to Local Government Level. He was commissioned by the department of environment, Vice President, Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar to design a climate change project (adaptation funds) for Zanzibar. The project title is “enhancing climate change resilience of coastal communities of Zanzibar”. ● He facilitated the design, establishment, and documentation of a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Scheme in the Mngeta Valley with key output on stakeholders’ analysis, Governance structure mapping, and the documentation of the process. ● He led the evaluation of livelihood-based enterprises for Sustainable Management of NouForest Ecosystem project in Mbulu and Babati districts and conducted a preliminary study on the integrational Natural Resource Management in Local Government Decision Making in Tanzania under the World Bank Tanzania, country office. Dominic holds a Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Management, Master of Science in Tropical Forest Management, and Ph.D. in Landscape Ecology. Subject Matter Expert - Theresia Philemon Mvungi (Ph.D.) - For support on desk review, data collection, analysis, and report writing. Theresia is a human geographer with expertise in natural resource governance and vast experience in evaluation and assessment studies in resource use conflicts, environmental conservation, land use plan, environmental policy, food security, climate change, and alternative livelihood activities for natural resource conservation. She is skilled in using GIS, a useful tool for research/assessment, and more significant in the research related to natural resource management. Her recent work using GIS was to evaluate the sustainability of Payment for ecosystem service (a market mechanism conservation strategy) on community livelihood and forest conservation in the Uluguru Mountains. ● She is a Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Dodoma, since 2008. ● She holds a Ph.D. in Geography – Theme under Natural Resources Governance; a master’s degree in Geography and Environmental Management, and a bachelor’s degree in Land use planning and environmental studies, all obtained at the University of Dar es Salaam. ● Jake Laden, Data for Development’s Senior Advisor and Evaluation and Assessments Component lead. He will lead the design and work-planning for the evaluation, will recruit the team, and provide overall supervision and quality assurance for the fieldwork, analysis, and report writing. ● David Hughes, Data for Development’s Chief of Party will be responsible for oversight of all project processes and deliverables shared with the Mission. ● Bahati Tenga; Data for Development Evaluation Specialist who will be the activity manager handling day-to-day management for the evaluation. She will provide full-time technical support in the evaluation including designing the workplan, document review, management of data collection, analysis, and participating in report writing. Ms. Tenga is a Social Scientist majoring in Environment Management, Climate Change, Project Management, and Qualitative Research analysis with over 19 years of professional experience in the consultancy field. She has the knowledge and vast experience in conducting evaluation, assessment, baseline, and other research studies using mixed methods. She is skilled in managing and coordinating evaluation assignments, having managed specific projects and multisectoral projects as well. Her extensive working experience with the public sector, development partners, civil society organizations, and local communities, in different sectors including natural resource management, climate change, agriculture, public health fields, with the focus on adolescents and youth￾friendly services, maternal reproductive and child health, HIV/AIDs, family planning, and health system strengthening, also in socio-economic areas of Youth Development and Women Empowerment as well as social inclusion gave her with multisectoral context and understanding. Previously she also worked on land tenure and infrastructure development (including water and road sectors in particular). Bahati holds two master’s degrees: MSc. in Climate change and Sustainable Development from University of Dar es Salaam; MSc. in Environmental and Natural Resource Management and Bachelor of Science in Ecology and Nature Management from University of People’s Friendship in Russia ● NORC HQ analyst – Ridhi Sahai TBD will provide qualitative analysis support for the Dedoose platform. ● NORC and ME&A HQ Offices will provide a review, operational and technical support, and editing and branding on final deliverables. Table 3 below presents the estimated level of effort (LOE) for the Assessment Team members. Table 3: Estimated LOE per Team Member Task STTA - Team Lead, Lauren Persha D4D Sr Evaluation Advisor Jacob Laden D4D Activity Manager - Evaluation Specialist - Bahati Tenga D4D GIS Specialist - Amon Mazanda STTA SME - Tanzania, Iddi Mwanyoka STTA SME - Tanzania, Theresia Philemon Mvungi STTA SME - Tanzania, Dominico Kilemo Qualitative Data analyst - TBD Work planning (assessment design remote or in-country) 5 days 5 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day - Instrument Development 6 days 2 days 4 days 1 day 4 days 4 days 4 days - Desk review 7 days 2 days 6 days - 6 days 6 days 6 days - Data collection and transcription of KIIs/GIIs 2 days 2 days 15 days 7 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 2 days Data analysis and analytic memos15 8 days 3 days 8 days 8 days 8 days 8 days 8 days 7 days 15 10 days of LOE will be needed for support for qualitative analysis. Task STTA - Team Lead, Lauren Persha D4D Sr Evaluation Advisor Jacob Laden D4D Activity Manager - Evaluation Specialist - Bahati Tenga D4D GIS Specialist - Amon Mazanda STTA SME - Tanzania, Iddi Mwanyoka STTA SME - Tanzania, Theresia Philemon Mvungi STTA SME - Tanzania, Dominico Kilemo Qualitative Data analyst - TBD Draft report preparation, review, and debrief to USAID 10 days 2-3 days 2 days 1 day 4 days 4 days 4 days 1 day Final report after USAID comments 4 days 2 days 1 day - 2 days 2 days 2 days - TOTAL LOE: 200 STTA LOE:137 32 days 18 days 35 days 18 days 35 days 35 days 35 days 10 A local firm for survey administration, transcription and translation services will be required. We will need 40 days of LOE for the roughly 40 KIIs and FGDs that require translation and transcription. *The LoE for telephone survey (TBD), upon receiving the contact list of trained participants and have sample size. ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS KII INSTRUMENT: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF USIMAMIZI ENDELEVU WA MALIASILI (RNRG) ACTIVITY INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT The Facilitator should read the following consent script prior to the start of the group discussion: Hello and thank you for agreeing to talk with us today. My name is [name of interviewer] and here is my colleague(s) _______ who will take notes during our conversation. We work for the Data for Development, a USAID Funded project that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision￾making in Tanzania. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has asked us to conduct a study to evaluate how the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) project is achieving its goals and helping people in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts. The aim of this discussion is to learn about your experiences with this project, capacity and other changes that may have taken place and the reasons why, and to understand how Village Land Use Planning and related elements of the project are functioning and may have affected natural resource and management in project villages. Our role here is to ask questions and listen to your opinions and experiences. We will be recording this discussion so that we can make sure we accurately note what you are telling us, and not forget anything that was said. You have been suggested as a key person to inform this evaluation based on your involvement in and/or collaboration in the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) activity and we would appreciate getting your perspective/views. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential and it will not be possible for you to be identified in our study report. If you would prefer we take notes and not use the recorder, please let us know. Please note that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers in this discussion. We would like you to share their experience and give feedback, either positive or negative. We ask that everyone here respect each person’s privacy and confidentiality, and not repeat what is said during this discussion. Right to Refuse of Withdraw: Your participation is completely voluntary and you can choose to not answer any questions or stop participating at any time. You are not obligated to answer any question that you are not comfortable with. This discussion will last approximately 60 minutes. The information you give will be stored safely for the duration of the project and shared anonymously with USAID. If you have any questions about the study or concerns at a later stage, please send them to the D4D Chief of Party. David Hughes, by email: or Phone. . Or reach out to the Activity Manager, Bahati Tenga through on this phone no. [START THE RECORDER TO GET VERBAL CONSENT] Do you agree to participate in today’s discussion? [IF YES, CONTINUE DISCUSSION] May we begin? [Facilitator: Remember to fill out the KII participant form and note-taking form for each KII conducted]. KII and Group KII Participant Registration Form: KII Protocol #1: District, Ward, and Community-level Respondents ● Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used to interview the following District, Ward, and Community-level officials or stakeholders: DENROs and other District officials, Ward Councilors and other Ward-level officials, VEOs, members of Village Council, and other Village governance stakeholders We understand that District officials worked with RNRG staff in 8-9 villages in the District to undertake a Village Land Use Planning process. We would like to talk with you about your experiences with RNRG facilitating Village Land Use Plans and related by-laws development in villages in your District. 1. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (EQ1) 1. In your capacity as [state respondent’s job / organizational title], what is the nature of your work with the RNRG activity on Village Land Use Planning in this District / village? [probe in terms of the types of outreach activities in villages and nature of communications, the type of services provided to villages and how the services are provided, and so on] a. What types of VLUP activities have you been involved in specifically, through RNRG? b. When did your involvement in VLUP activities with RNRG begin? c. Did you receive any training through RNRG for VLUP activities? In what ways has this increased your capacity to undertake VLUP, if at all? 2. To what extent have District, Ward, and Village-level authorities been involved in the process? 3. In your experience, as everyone in the community who wanted to participate in the VLUP process able to? [probe specifically about women, youth, farmers, pastoralists, and agro￾pastoralists] a. If some people or groups were not able to participate as strongly, who were these people, and what were the main reasons why? 4. In your view, do the approved VLUPs reflect the needs and interests of different groups within the community? Why or why not? 5. For villages that already have an approved VLUP in place, to what extent are communities/members of your community implementing and taking ownership of their LUP? Can you provide some examples? a. If communities are not implementing their LUP, what are the main reasons why? b. If communities are not taking ownership of their LUP, what are the main reasons? 6. For villages that do not yet have an approved VLUP in place, what are the main reasons that the RNRG activity has not been able to accomplish this yet? 7. In your view, do community members understand the potential benefits of having a VLUP for their village? [examples of potential benefits may include: clarified land access and use rights, reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain CCROs, the potential for new livelihood opportunities, and improved environment and natural resources] a. Are there any potential costs to having a VLUP, in your experience? 8. Have you seen any examples of community members changing their land use behavior as a result of their VLUP? Please provide some examples? a. What do you think has motivated these changes? b. If no changes, what do you think are the main reasons why? 9. In your view, what are the most important benefits that community members or the community overall has experienced as a result of their LUP? [probe on any improvements to income / economic growth, empowerment of different groups within the community, natural resource management and conservation, reduced land conflicts] a. How specifically has the LUP helped community members to achieve these improvements? 10. What were the main challenges that arose in implementing the VLUP process, if any? a. How were those challenges overcome, if at all? Are you satisfied with the result? b. Would you suggest any changes in how to approach those challenges in future? 11. Do you have any key lessons learned from the process that you would share with others, whether positive or negative? Is there anything about the process that you think should have been done differently, or could be improved in future? Now we would like to turn to issues related to natural resource management and governance. 2. COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO HOLD NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE (EQ2) 1. In your view, what are the most important institutions responsible for managing natural resources in villages [examples at village level include: VNRCs, WUAs, CBWSOs, WMAs]? At the district level? [probe for the 3-5 most important institutions] 2. Have any RNRG activities changed the way any of these institutions function, or how communities and community members engage with them? a. Which ones, and how? Please provide examples. 3. How would you rate the capacity and performance of these institutions with respect to their responsibilities? Are there any aspects of their performance that you think could be improved? 4. In terms of community capacity to hold these institutions accountable for their responsibilities to manage and protect natural resources, what steps has RNRG taken to strengthen this, if at all? Please provide examples. a. Are there any other ways you think RNRG could strengthen community capacity to hold these institutions accountable? If yes, what are they? 3. COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO MANAGEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (EQ3) 1. What are the main challenges that communities in this district face in managing natural resources, in your view? a. Has RNRG taken any steps to help communities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen community capacity on this in future? 2. Speaking now about local government authorities, what are the main challenges they face in managing natural resources in this district, in your view? a. Has RNRG taken any steps to help local government authorities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe how successful were these efforts, and the reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen local government capacity on this in the future? 3. Has RNRG helped to identify and implement any income-generating activities (IGAs) in communities in this district? [probe what type of activities, how culturally and environmentally friendly are they, and how widely are they implemented] 2. How successful are these activities, in terms of providing additional income to households or individuals in the communities? 3. Do any of these activities help to improve the environment or the health of community members? In what ways? 4. Are there any other IGAs that you think could be more relevant to individuals or communities? 4. STRATEGIES FOR AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING ON NRM, NRM GOVERNANCE, SAM AND CC (EQ4) 1. In your view, what is the current level of community awareness on issues related to: a. Natural Resource Management and Governance b. Social Accountability Monitoring c. Climate Change 2. What are the most important ways that RNRG has increased awareness on each of these different issues in communities in your district, if at all? a. Who do you think has been most affected by this awareness-raising, why, and how? b. What strategies do you think are most effective, and why? c. Are there any other strategies you think could be more relevant and useful? 3. Have you seen any changes in natural resource management or governance in communities as a result of these awareness-raising activities? a. If yes, please provide examples. b. If not, what are the main reasons the awareness-raising has not resulted in changes on this? In our final section of the interview, we would like to briefly discuss issues related to LEAT’s capacity as an implementer of this RNRG activity. 5. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION (EQ5) 1. Have you noticed any changes to how LEAT or their partners operates in villages, and with village and ward-level officials and institutions? Can you comment on their collaboration with District authorities to accomplish their work? 6. CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. We asked a lot of questions and learned a lot from you. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. ● KII Protocol #2: Regional and National Officials ● Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used for respondents from MNRT, TFS, NLUPC, and Regional GoT Officials including the Regional Commissioner, Natural Resources Officers, and Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner. I. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (EQ1) 1. In your capacity as [state respondent’s job / organizational title], are you aware of the RNRG activity and what it is doing in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts? How is your institution involved in the activity? a. What is the nature of your work with the RNRG activity on Village Land Use Planning in villages in these districts? [probe in terms of the types of outreach activities in villages and nature of communications, the type of services provided to villages and how the services are provided, and so on] b. What types of VLUP activities have you been involved in specifically, through RNRG? c. When did your involvement in VLUP activities with RNRG begin? 2. In your experience, has the VLUP process that RNRG facilitated followed national guidelines for the VLUP process? 3. In your view, what are the most important benefits that community members or the community overall typically experience as a result of their LUP? [probe on any improvements to income / economic growth, empowerment of different groups within the community, natural resource management, and conservation, clarified land access and use rights, reduce land conflicts, and ability to obtain a CCRO; potential for new livelihoods opportunities] a. Do community members typically understand these benefits of having a VLUP? b. Have you seen any evidence of these benefits taking hold in RNRG communities? Please provide examples. 4. What are the main challenges that communities face in general, in implementing the VLUP process, in your experience? a. Are you aware of any ways that the RNRG activity helped RNRG communities to overcome these challenges, if at all? Are you satisfied with the result? b. Would you suggest any changes in how to approach those challenges in the future? 5. Is there anything about the RNRG-facilitated VLUP process that you think should have been done differently or could be improved in the future? Do you have any key lessons learned that you would share with others, whether positive or negative? Now we would like to turn to issues related to natural resource management and governance. II. COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO HOLD NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE (EQ2) 1. In your view, what are the most important institutions responsible for managing natural resources in villages? [examples at the village level include: VNRCs, WUAs, and CBWSOs,] At the district level? [probe for the 3-5 most important institutions] 2. In your experience, have any RNRG activities changed the way any of these institutions function in RNRG villages, or how communities and community members engage with them? a. Which ones, and how? Please provide examples. 3. How would you rate the capacity and performance of these institutions with respect to their responsibilities? Are there any aspects of their performance that you think could be improved? 4. In terms of community capacity to hold these institutions accountable for their responsibilities to manage and protect natural resources, what steps has RNRG taken to strengthen this, if at all? Please provide examples. III. COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO MANAGEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (EQ3) 1. What are the main challenges that communities in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts face in managing natural resources, in your view? a. Has RNRG taken any steps to help communities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen community capacity on this in future? 2. What are the main challenges that Nkasi and Sumbawanga District Councils are facing in managing natural resources, in your view? a. Are you aware of any steps RNRG has taken to help local government authorities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen local government capacity on this in future? 3. Has RNRG helped to implement any income-generating activities in communities in these districts, to your knowledge? [probe on what type of activities, cultural and environmental relevance, and how widely are they implemented] b. How successful are these activities, in your view, in terms of providing additional income to households or individuals in the communities? c. Do any of these activities help to improve the environment or the health of community members? In what ways? IV. STRATEGIES FOR AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING ON NRM, NRM GOVERNANCE, SAM AND CC (EQ4) 1. In your view, what is the current level of community awareness in RNRG villages on issues related to: a. Natural Resource Management and Governance b. Social Accountability Monitoring c. Climate Change 2. What are the most important ways that RNRG has increased awareness on each of these different issues in the RNRG activity villages, if at all? a. What strategies do you think are most effective, and why? 3. Have you seen any changes in natural resource management or governance in these communities as a result of these awareness raising activities? a. If yes, please provide examples. b. If no, what could be the main reasons the awareness raising has not resulted in changes on this? In our final section of the interview, we would like to briefly discuss issues related to LEAT’s capacity as an implementer of this RNRG activity. V. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION (EQ5) 1. Have you seen any changes in LEAT’s capacity to undertake RNRG activities since it began in 2020? a. If yes, what are the most important ways their capacity has improved, in your view? b. [probe] Have you noticed any changes to how LEAT or their partners operates in villages, and with village and ward-level officials and institutions? c. [probe] Have you noticed any changes in how LEAT or their partners operates and collaborates with District authorities to accomplish their work? Regional and national level authorities? d. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity? 2. Are there any activities or actions your think that RNRG implementers could do going forwards to further increase the ability for the project to achieve its objectives? Do you have any general recommendations on this that you would share with us? VI. CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. We asked a lot of questions and learned a lot from you. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. • KII Protocol #3: Other Development Projects • Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used for respondents from other development projects operating in Sumbawanga and Nkasi Districts, including IUCN, Save the Children, WCS, Chem ChemFM, FEECEE We would like to talk with you about your experiences working with or interacting with RNRG on issues related to Village Land Use Plans and related by-laws development, and strengthening natural resource management and governance in villages in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts I. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (EQ1) 1. What is the nature of your work or interactions with the RNRG activity on Village Land Use Planning in these Districts? [probe in terms of the types of outreach activities in villages and nature of communications, types of interactions and collaboration, etc] a. What types of VLUP activities have you been involved in specifically, through RNRG? b. Are there any other types of activities or collaborations that you / your organization has engaged in regarding RNRG? 2. How do you see the nature of the RNRG activity on VLUP in these districts, in terms of the activities undertaken, strategies and objectives of the activity? a. To your knowledge, has the VLUP process that RNRG facilitated followed national guidelines for the VLUP process? b. To the extent you have knowledge on this, do the approved VLUPs that RNRG facilitated reflect the needs and interests of different groups within the communities? Why or why not? 3. What are the main challenges that communities face in general, in implementing the VLUP process, in your experience? a. Are you aware of any ways that the RNRG activity helped RNRG communities to overcome these challenges, if at all? b. Have you seen any evidence of benefits of VLUP taking hold in RNRG communities? Please provide examples. c. Is there anything about the RNRG-facilitated VLUP process that you think could have been done differently by the implementers to improve effectiveness and sustainability of the process, or could be improved in future? Now we would like to turn to issues related to natural resource management and governance. II. COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO HOLD NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE (EQ2) 1. In your experience, have any RNRG activities changed the functioning of institutions responsible for managing natural resources in RNRG villages, and at the district level, or how communities and community members engage with them? a. Which ones, and how? Please provide examples. 2. How would you rate the capacity and performance of these institutions with respect to their responsibilities? What aspects of their performance could most be improved, if any? 3. In terms of community capacity to hold these institutions accountable for their responsibilities to manage and protect natural resources, are you aware of any steps has RNRG taken to strengthen this, if at all? Please provide examples. 4. Are there any alternative ways to strengthen community capacity on this that are effective, or could be pursued, in your view? III. COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO MANAGEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (EQ3) 1. What are the main challenges that communities in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts face in managing natural resources, in your view? a. What needs to be done to help communities effectively overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that need to be done to strengthen community capacity on managing natural resources in their communities? 2. Speaking now about local government authorities, what are the main challenges they face in managing natural resources in this district, in your view? a. What needs to be done to help local government overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that need to be done to strengthen local government capacity on managing natural resources? IV. STRATEGIES FOR AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING ON NRM, NRM GOVERNANCE, SAM AND CC (EQ4) 1. In your experience, what are the most effective ways to raise community awareness on each of these different issues (Natural Resource Management and Governance; Social Accountability Monitoring; and Climate Change) in communities in Nkasi and Sumbawanga district a. What strategies do you think are most effective, and why? [examples: radio programming, gender relations in natural resource management] 2. Are these strategies and improved awareness raising activities likely to lead to changes in natural resource use and improved natural resource management in communities? a. If yes, please provide examples. What types of changes or improvements are likely? b. If no, what are the main reasons why? In our final section of the interview, we would like to briefly discuss issues related to LEAT’s capacity as an implementer of this RNRG activity. V. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION (EQ5) 1. What do you do see as the main organizational strengths and weaknesses of LEAT, and their local implementing partners, to implement this type of an activity? 2. Have you seen any changes in LEAT’s capacity to undertake RNRG activities since it began in 2020? a. If yes, what are the most important ways their capacity has improved, in your view? b. [probe] Have you noticed any changes to how LEAT or their partners operates in villages, and with village and ward-level officials and institutions? c. [probe] Have you noticed any changes in how LEAT or their partners operates and collaborates with District authorities to accomplish their work? Regional and national level authorities? d. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity? 3. Are there any activities or actions your think that RNRG implementers could do going forwards to further increase the ability for the project to achieve its objectives? Do you have any general recommendations on this that you would share with us? VI. CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. We asked a lot of questions and learned a lot from you. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. • KII Protocol #4: LEAT and sub-awardees • Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used for respondents from LEAT and their sub-awardees. We would like to talk with you about your experiences working on and implementing the RNRG activity in villages in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts I. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (EQ1) 1. In your capacity as [state respondent’s job / organizational title], what is the nature of your work with the RNRG activity on Village Land Use Planning in this District / village? [probe in terms of the types of outreach activities in villages and nature of communications, the type of services provided to villages and how the services are provided, and so on] a. What types of VLUP activities have you been involved in specifically, through RNRG? b. When did your involvement in VLUP activities with RNRG begin? c. Did you receive any training through RNRG for VLUP activities? In what ways has this increased your capacity to undertake your responsibilities under the project, if at all? 2. What steps did RNRG take to ensure the VLUP process that RNRG facilitated followed national guidelines for the VLUP process? 3. [for technical staff] What steps did RNRG take to ensure that District, Ward and Village￾level authorities were involved in the process? a. In what ways did RNRG work to facilitate ownership of the process by these authorities? How effective has that been? b. Are there any ways the project could further strengthen this? 4. [for technical staff] In your experience, was everyone in the community who wanted to participate in the VLUP process able to? [probe specifically about women, youth, farmers, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists] a. If some people or groups were not able to participate as strongly, what were the main reasons why? 5. [for technical staff] In your view, do the approved VLUPs reflect the needs and interests of different groups within the community? Why or why not? 6. [for technical staff] For villages that already have an approved VLUP in place, to what extent are communities / members of your community implementing and taking ownership of their LUP? Can you provide some examples? a. If communities are not implementing their LUP, what are the main reasons why? 7. [for technical staff] For villages that do not yet have an approved VLUP in place, what are the main reasons that the RNRG activity has not been able to accomplish this yet? 8. [for technical staff] In your view, do community members understand the potential benefits of having a VLUP for their village? [examples of potential benefits may include: clarified land access and use rights, reduced land conflicts, ability to obtain CCROs, potential for new livelihood opportunities and improved environment and natural resources] 9. [for technical staff] Have you seen any examples of community members changing their land use behavior as a result of their VLUP? Please provide some examples? a. What do you think has motivated these changes? b. If no changes, what do you think are the main reasons why? 10. [for technical staff] In your view, what are the most important benefits that community members or the community overall has experienced as a result of their LUP? [probe on any improvements to income / economic growth, empowerment of different groups within the community, natural resource management and conservation] a. How specifically has the LUP helped community members to achieve these improvements? 11. What were the main challenges that arose in implementing the VLUP process, if any? a. How were those challenges overcome, if at all? Are you satisfied with the result? b. Would you suggest any changes in how to approach those challenges in future? 12. Do you have any key lessons learned from the process that you would share with others? Is there anything about the process that you think should have been done differently, or could be improved in future? Now we would like to turn to issues related to natural resource management and governance. II. COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO HOLD NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE (EQ2) 1. In your view, what are the most important institutions responsible for managing natural resources in villages [examples at village level include: VNRCs, WUAs, CBWSOs, WMAs]? At the district level? [probe for the 3-5 most important institutions] a. Do you think the project’s focus on strengthening particular institutions within villages has been appropriate? Effective? Why or why not? 2. In your experience, have any RNRG activities changed the way any of these institutions function, or how communities and community members engage with them? a. Which ones, and how? Please provide examples. 3. How would you rate the capacity and performance of these institutions with respect to their responsibilities? Are there any aspects of their performance that you think could be improved? 4. In terms of community capacity to hold these institutions accountable for their responsibilities to manage and protect natural resources, what steps has RNRG taken to strengthen this, if at all? Please provide examples. III. COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO MANAGEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (EQ3) 1. What are the main challenges that communities in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts face in managing natural resources, in your view? a. What specific steps has RNRG taken to help communities overcome these challenges, if any? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen community capacity on this in future? 2. Speaking now about local government authorities, what are the main challenges they face in managing natural resources in this district, in your view? a. What steps has RNRG taken to help local government authorities overcome these challenges, if any? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] b. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen local government capacity on this in future? 3. Turning now to the income-generating activities that RNRG has focused on implementing in villages, which of these activities do you think have been most successful, and why? [probe on what type of activities, and how widely are they implemented] IV. STRATEGIES FOR AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING ON NRM, NRM GOVERNANCE, SAM AND CC (EQ4) 4. In your view, what is the current level of community awareness on issues related to the below, in RNRG villages: a. Natural Resource Management and Governance b. Social Accountability Monitoring c. Climate Change 5. What are the most important ways that RNRG has increased awareness on each of these different issues in the activity villages, if at all? a. What strategies do you think are most effective, and why? b. Who do you think has been most affected by this awareness raising, and why? 6. Have you seen any changes in natural resource management or governance in communities as a result of these awareness raising activities? a. If yes, please provide examples. b. If no, what are the main reasons the awareness raising has not resulted in changes on this? In our final section of the interview, we would like to briefly discuss issues related to LEAT’s capacity as an implementer of this RNRG activity. V. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION (EQ5) 1. What you do see as the main organizational strengths and weaknesses of LEAT and their local partners (sub-awardees) to implement this type of an activity? 2. Were you involved in using the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) to help improve management effectiveness within LEAT and its sub-awardees? a. If yes, what were the main capacity gaps identified? b. If yes, what are the main steps LEAT has taken so far to strengthen its own organizational capacity? That of its local partners? c. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity? 3. [Only ask this question if answer to Q2 above is no] Have you seen any changes in LEAT’s capacity to undertake RNRG activities since it began in 2020? a. If yes, what are the most important ways their capacity has improved, in your view? b. [probe] Have you noticed any changes to how LEAT or their partners operates in villages, and with village and ward-level officials and institutions? c. [probe] Have you noticed any changes in how LEAT or their partners operates and collaborates with District authorities to accomplish their work? Regional and national level authorities? d. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity 4. Are there any other activities or actions your think that RNRG could do going forwards to further increase the ability for the project to achieve its objectives? Do you have any genera recommendations that you would share with us? CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. • KII Protocol #5: USAID staff • Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used for USAID staff only. I. INTRODUCTION, CHALLENGES AND ACHIEVEMENTS 1. Please describe your role with respect to the RNRG activities. 2. To what extent have you interacted with RNRG on their Village Land Use Planning activities in villages in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts? 3. What were the most important challenges for the RNRG activity to overcome, in your view, with respect to facilitating VLUPs and related activities in villages in the two Districts? 4. What do you see as the most important achievements of the RNRG activity to date, whether with respect to VLUP, activities to strengthen natural resource management and governance, or otherwise? 5. Are there any ways you think the focus or implementation of the activity could be strengthened to increase its effectiveness and sustainability? We would also like to briefly discuss issues related to LEAT’s capacity as an implementer of this RNRG activity. II. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION (EQ5) 1. What you do see as the main organizational strengths and weaknesses of LEAT and their local partners (sub-awardees) to implement this type of activity? 2. Were you involved in using the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) to help improve management effectiveness within LEAT and its sub-awardees? a. If yes, what were the main capacity gaps identified? b. If yes, what are the main steps LEAT has taken so far to strengthen its own organizational capacity? That of its local partners? c. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity? 3. [Only ask this question if answer to Q2 above is no] Have you seen any changes in LEAT’s capacity to undertake RNRG activities since it began in 2020? a. If yes, what are the most important ways their capacity has improved, in your view? b. [probe] Have you noticed any changes to how LEAT or their partners operates in villages, and with village and ward-level officials and institutions? c. [probe] Have you noticed any changes in how LEAT or their partners operates and collaborates with District authorities to accomplish their work? Regional and national level authorities? d. Are there any areas you think could be focused on in future to further strengthen their capacity 4. Are there any other activities or actions your think that RNRG implementers could do going forwards to further increase the ability for the project to achieve its objectives? Do you have any genera recommendations that you would share with us? III. CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. ANNEX 7: QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS FGD INSTRUMENT: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF USIMAMIZI ENDELEVU WA MALIASILI (RNRG) ACTIVITY Key Themes and Topics of Inquiry 1. (EQ1 / IR1) General VLUP progress and participation a. VLUP process and development (includes District, Ward and Village authority roles) b. Adherence to national and district participatory LUP guidelines c. Community participation and inclusivity in the process d. Reasons for participation or not by different members of the community 2. (EQ 1b / IR1) Community ownership, understanding and behavior change due to VLUPs a. Community acceptance and ownership of VLUPs b. Community understanding of potential benefits of VLUPs c. Community understanding of potential costs of VLUPs d. Community changes in land use behaviour as a result of VLUP, if any, and reasons why or why not 3. (EQ 1c / IR1) Community anticipated and actual benefits from VLUPs a. Community benefits reported as a result of VLUP (for communities with an approved VLUP), or benefits anticipated by the community (for communities without an approved VLUP) b. Perceived contribution of VLUPs towards: poverty reduction, empowerment, conservation, economic improvements, improving land conflicts c. Reasons for differences in anticipated benefits vs actual benefits perceived by community members 4. (EQ 1d / IR1) Key challenges and lessons learned d. Potential opportunities that LEAT/RUSUDEO/District and Village Authorities identified with VLUP implementation e. Challenges that LEAT/RUSUDEO/District and Village Authorities faced with VLUP implementation f. How were challenges overcome? g. Key lessons learned 5. (EQ 2 / IR2) Community capacity to hold natural resource management institutions accountable a. Community uses and challenges regarding natural resources in and adjacent to their communities (focus on forests, water, wildlife, communal grazing areas) b. Community engagement with institutions managing natural resources c. Community capacity to hold institutions accountable 6. (EQ 3 / IR3) Capacity to manage natural resources a. Community capacity to manage natural resources b. Local government capacity to manage natural resources 7. (EQ 3a / IR3) Support to environmentally-friendly income-generating activities a. Potential income generating activities b. Participatory identification of IGAs 8. (EQ 4 / IR4) Strategies for and efficacy of community awareness raising on NRM, NRM governance, SAM and CC a. Level of current awareness b. Most effective formats and reasons why c. Changes as a result of awareness raising and reasons why 9. (EQ 5) Implementing partner organizational capacity, collaboration and sustainability a. Organizational strengths and weaknesses; internal collaboration b. Collaboration with agreement partners and local partners c. Organizational capacity gaps and changes in LEAT, RUSEDEO, other sub-awardees d. Use of OCAT e. Community perceptions of implementation effectiveness and sustainability Introduction and Consent The Facilitator should read the following consent script prior to the start of the group discussion: Hello and thank you for agreeing to talk with us today. My name is [name of interviewer] and here is my colleague(s) _______ who will take notes during our conversation. We work for the Data for Development, a USAID Funded project that seeks to improve quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has asked us to conduct a study to evaluate how the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) project is achieving its goals and helping people in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts. The aim of this discussion is to learn about your experiences with this project, capacity and other changes that may have taken place and the reasons why, and to understand how Village Land Use Planning and related elements of the project are functioning and may have affected natural resource and management in project villages. Our role here is to ask questions and listen to your opinions and experiences. We will be recording this discussion so that we can make sure we accurately note what you are telling us, and not forget anything that was said. You have been suggested as a key person to inform this evaluation based on your involvement in and/or collaboration in the Usimamizi endeleve wa maliasili (RNRG) activity and we would appreciate getting your perspective/views. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential and it will not be possible for you to be identified in our study report. If you would prefer we take notes and not use the recorder, please let us know. Please note that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers in this discussion. We would like you to share their experience and give feedback, either positive or negative. We ask that everyone here respect each person’s privacy and confidentiality, and not repeat what is said during this discussion. Right to Refuse of Withdraw: Your participation is completely voluntary and you can choose to not answer any question or stop participating at any time. You are not obligated to answer any question that you are not comfortable with. This discussion will last approximately 60 minutes. The information you give will be stored safely for the duration of the project and shared anonymously with USAID. If you have any questions about the study or concerns at the later stage, please send them to D4D Chief of Party. David Hughes, by email: or Phone. . Or reach out to the Activity Manager, Bahati Tenga through on this phone no. [START THE RECORDER TO GET VERBAL CONSENT] Do you agree to participate in today’s discussion? [IF YES, CONTINUE DISCUSSION] May we begin? [Facilitator: Remember to fill out the KII participant form and note-taking form for each KII conducted]. GD Participant Registration Form: FGD Protocol Mid-Term Evaluation of Usimamizi Endelevu Wa Maliasili (RNRG) This guide should be used for all FGD respondent categories (male and female). We understand that RNRG and local government authorities are working in several villages in this District to facilitate Village Land Use Planning and strengthen natural resource management in villages. We would like to begin by talking with you about your experiences with RNRG facilitating Village Land Use Plans and related by-laws development in villages in your District. Before we start, can you let me know by what name do you know this project? 7. VILLAGE LAND USE PLANNING (EQ1) 12. How many people here in this group participated in Village Land Use Planning activities in your village, as part of the RNRG project? May I see a show of hands? [probe in terms of the types of outreach activities in villages and nature of communications, the type of services provided, and so on] a. What types of VLUP activities have you been involved in specifically, through RNRG? b. Did you receive any training through RNRG for VLUP activities? In what ways has this increased your capacity to undertake VLUP, if at all? 13. In your experience, was everyone in your community who wanted to participate in the VLUP process able to? [probe specifically about women, youth, farmers, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists] a. If some people or groups were not able to participate as strongly, what were the main reasons why? 14. In your view, do the approved VLUPs and by-laws reflect the needs and interests of different groups within your community? Why or why not? 15. For villages that already have an approved VLUP in place, to what extent are members of your community implementing and taking ownership of their LUP? Can you provide some examples? a. If communities are not implementing their LUP, what are the main reasons why? b. If community are not taking ownership of their LUP, what are the main reasons? 16. For villages that already have approved by-laws in place, to what extent are these by-laws being followed by people in your village? a. Are the by-laws known and seen as fair by everyone in the community? b. How are the by-laws being monitoring and the rules enforced? What is your view about the sustainability of this monitoring? c. Are there any ways that people are changing their behaviour as a result of the by-laws? Please provide examples. 17. For villages that do not yet have an approved VLUP in place, what are the main reasons that the RNRG activity has not been able to accomplish this yet? 18. Have you seen any examples of community members changing their land use behavior as a result of their VLUP? Please provide some examples? a. What do you think has motivated these changes? b. If no changes, what do you think are the main reasons why? 19. In your view, what are the most important benefits that community members or the community overall has experienced as a result of their LUP? [probe on any improvements to income / economic growth, empowerment of different groups within the community, natural resource management and conservation, reduced land conflicts] a. How specifically has the LUP helped community members to achieve these improvements? 20. What were the main challenges that arose in implementing the VLUP process, if any? a. How were those challenges overcome, if at all? Are you satisfied with the result? b. Would you suggest any changes in how to approach those challenges in future? c. Were there any opportunities identified in the course of implementing the VLUP process? 21. Do you have any key lessons learned from the process, whether positive or negative, that you would share with others? Now we would like to turn to issues related to natural resource management and governance. Here, we are focusing on natural resources like forests, water, wildlife and areas for grazing that are in or adjacent to your villages. 8. COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO HOLD NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE (EQ2) 5. In your view, what are the most important/relevant institutions responsible for managing forests, water, wildlife and grazing area natural resources in your villages? At the district level? [probe for the 3-5 most important institutions – may need to provide some examples] 6. In your experience, have any RNRG activities changed the way any of these institutions function? a. Which ones, and how? Please provide examples. 7. Have any RNRG activities changed how you and other members of your village interact with these institutions? Please provide examples. 8. What are the most important ways that RNRG has strengthened community capacity to hold these institutions accountable for their responsibilities to manage and protect natural resources, if at all? Please provide examples. 9. Are there any other steps you think RNRG could take to strengthen community capacity on this? If yes, what are these? 9. COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO MANAGEMENT NATURAL RESOURCES (EQ3) 1. What are the main challenges that your communities face in managing natural resources, in your view? c. Do these challenges differ for different types of natural resources, such as forests, water, wildlife and grazing areas? If yes, please explain. d. Has RNRG taken any steps to help communities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on the steps and how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] e. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen community capacity on this in future? f. What is the potential capacity in your community to manage natural resources in your village and adjacent areas, in your view? 2. Speaking now about local government authorities, what are the main challenges they face in managing natural resources in this district, in your view? c. Has RNRG taken any steps to help local government authorities overcome these challenges? Please provide examples. [probe on how successful were these efforts, and reasons why] d. What are the most important things that still need to be done to strengthen local government capacity on this in future? 3. Has RNRG helped to identify and implement any income-generating activities (IGAs) in your communities? [probe on what type of activities, how widely are they implemented, and whether culturally and environmentally-friendly] 2. How successful are these activities, in your view, in terms of providing additional income to households or individuals in the communities? 3. Do any of these activities help to improve the environment or the health of community members? In what ways? 4. Are there any of the IGAs that you think could be more relevant to individuals in your community, or the community overall? If yes, which ones and why? 10. STRATEGIES FOR AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING ON NRM, NRM GOVERNANCE, SAM AND CC (EQ4) 7. In your view, what is the current level of community awareness on issues related to: a. Natural Resource Management and Governance [probe specifically for forests, water, wildlife and grazing areas] b. Social Accountability Monitoring c. Climate Change 8. What are the most important ways that RNRG has increased awareness on each of these different issues in your communities, if at all? a. Who do you think has been most affected by this awareness raising, why and how? b. What strategies or activities do you think are most effective, and why? c. Are there any other strategies that you think could be more relevant and useful? 9. Have you seen any changes in natural resource management or governance in communities as a result of these awareness raising activities? a. If yes, for which types of natural resources (forests, water, wildlife, grazing areas)? Please provide examples. Which changes are most important, in your view? b. If no, what are the main reasons the awareness raising has not resulted in changes on this? c. Are there any particular challenges that contributed to why natural resource management or governance has not changed in your community? As the last part of our discussion, we would like to briefly discuss the general implementation and sustainability of the RNRG activity in your communities. 11. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY , COLLABORATION AND ACTIVITY SUSTAINABILITY (EQ5) 2. Are there any aspects of the RNRG project implementation in your communities that you thought worked particularly well? Which ones, and why? 3. Are there any aspects of RNRG/s implementation or activities that you thought did not work well at all? Which ones, and why? 4. In your view, are the training and knowledge that you (and others you may know) received through RNRG sufficient to continue conducting your responsibilities on VLUP and natural resource management even after the project ends? a. If no, why not? What else would you need to achieve this? 5. What are your views regarding local community ownership of the RNRG activity and its activities? Project benefits and distribution? 6. Are there any other issues that we didn’t discuss, which you think are important for RNRG to address in order to strengthen land use planning and natural resource management in your village into the future? 12. CONCLUSION Thank you for discussing these issues with us today. We asked a lot of questions and learned a lot from you. Is there anything that you want to add, or would like to ask us? Closing: This concludes our discussion. Thank you for your time today and your participation. Your comments will be invaluable to our reporting. ANNEX 4: SURVEY OF PARTICIPANTS OF WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING ORGANISED THROUGH RNRG (Est. Time ~20 – 30 mins) A. Introduction and Consent Form Introduction Thank you for your participation in this survey. USAID has asked Data for Development to conduct a Mid Term Performance Evaluation of the Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili/Resilient Natural Resource Governance (RNRG) activity which is being implemented in Nkasi and Sumbawanga Districts , in Rukwa Region, by Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT) and their partner Rukwa Sustainable Development Organization (RUSUDEO). The evaluation is being conducted to assess how the RNRG activity has performed against its objectives and mid-term performance targets across its four (4) Intermediate Results (IRs) and potential areas for adaptations or course correction in the remaining activity period. The evaluation will also report on the organizational capacity of LEAT to implement, monitor, and report on this activity. You have been suggested as a key person to participate in this study due to your participation in capacity￾building activities supported by Usimamizi Endelevu wa Maliasili (RNRG) Activity and we would appreciate your views. Your participation and perspective are therefore important to us. This survey will take about 20 - 30 minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete it in one sitting, you can resume it later by clicking again on the link (URL) in the invitation email. Our survey platform will save your answers at the end of each page. Confidentiality All data provided through this survey will be kept strictly confidential and only the assessment team will review and analyze them. The survey data will be kept on a secure server and will be destroyed once the project is completed. Your privacy will be protected; we will not include any information in any report that would make it possible to identify you or your company/organization without your consent. Only aggregated data will be reported. Right to Refuse or Withdraw The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. You may refuse to take part in this survey at any point in time, and you have the right not to answer any single question, as well as to stop taking the survey at any point. You will not be penalized if you choose to not answer or withdraw from this discussion. Right to Ask Questions and Report Concerns You have the right to ask questions about this study and to have those questions answered by us. If you have any questions about the study or survey, feel free to contact Bahati Tenga Activity Manager for this Evaluation, through email: , or by phone no. . Or Rose Aiko – Survey Specialist by e-mail: or by phone at: . If you have any further questions about the evaluation at a later stage feel free to send them to Data for Development Chief of Party, David Hughes, Email: , Tel. Consent to Participate in Survey C1. Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No (if No, skip to end) C2. We would also like to record this interview, if you would agree, to aid in quality assurance. Would you please give permission to record the interview? Yes No Not applicable (Survey is self-administered) C3. Enumerator ID [Text box] C4. Enumerator Name [Text box] C5. Survey start date and time [Date and Time Format] C6. [If survey/interview is declined] To ensure that the team will not trouble you with follow up calls to complete the survey, please fill the survey number assigned to the survey that you received: B: SURVEY QUESTIONS B.1 Participant Profile 1. Respondent ID 2. Your first name [If telephonically done, the Enumerator will fill the name]: 3. Your last name [If telephonically done, the Enumerator will fill the name]: 4. Your Gender a. Female b. Male 5. Your present age (years) 6. Your current region of residence: a. Rukwa b. Other (specify) 7. What district do you live in? a. Nkasi b. Sumbawanga c. Kalambo 8. In which ward do you live in? [List of wards if Q7 selection is “Nkasi” or “Sumbawanga”] 9. In which village are you a resident? [List of villages, by ward if Q7 selection is “Nkasi” or “Sumbawange”] B.2 Participant’s Organizational Information 10. Do you hold a leadership or representative position in any government organization or committee in your district? a. Yes b. No 11. At what level of government do you hold this position? a. District Level b. Division Level c. Ward Level d. Village Level e. Other (please specify) 12. What is your position within the organization or committee at that level? [Positions by level list; see list at end of survey] B.3.1 Training Workshop and Sensitization Meetings Attendance and Topics 13. For each of the topics below, did you receive any training, mentorship or technical advice from RNRG in the period since March 2020? (select all that apply) - Yes No Can’t recall a. VICOBA group formation and resource management b. Income-generating activity (IGA) identification, planning and management c. Natural Resource Management related to wildlife d. Natural Resource Management related to forests e. Natural Resource Management related to land f. Natural Resource Management related to water g. Developing and enforcing by laws to manage and regulate village water, land, forest and wildlife resources h. Climate Change i. Climate Smart Practices like tree planning, kitchen gardens and energy saving j. Social Accountability Monitoring k. Vocational training on different agricultural and livestock techniques l. Vocational training on food processing m. Other (please specify) B.3.2. Number of different Workshops Attended 14. How many different workshops or trainings from the RNRG activity have you attended, in total, in the period since March 2020? [Pulled list: Enter number by training ] B.4 Knowledge Acquired, Relevancy, and Training Quality B.4.1 Knowledge or Skills Gained 15. To what extent would you say you gained new knowledge or skills from participating in the workshops or trainings on these topics? Training topic Not at all Little new knowledge Moderate amount of new knowledge A lot of new knowledge a. VICOBA group formation and resource management b. Income-generating activity (IGA) identification, planning and management c. Natural Resource Management related to wildlife d. Natural Resource Management related to forests e. Natural Resource Management related to land f. Natural Resource Management related to water g. Developing and enforcing by laws to manage and regulate village water, land, forest and wildlife resources h. Climate Change i. Climate Smart Practices like tree planning, kitchen gardens and energy saving j. Social Accountability Monitoring k. Vocational training on different agricultural and livestock techniques l. Vocational training on food processing m. Other (please specify) B.4.2. Usefulness of the workshops or trainings attended 16. To what extent have the workshops or trainings you attended been useful to your position and role/responsibilities?] Training topic Not at all useful A little useful Moderately useful Highly useful a. VICOBA group formation and resource management b. Income-generating activity (IGA) identification, planning and management c. Natural Resource Management related to wildlife d. Natural Resource Management related to forests e. Natural Resource Management related to land f. Natural Resource Management related to water g. Developing and enforcing by laws to manage and regulate village water, land, forest and wildlife resources h. Climate Change i. Climate Smart Practices like tree planning, kitchen gardens and energy saving j. Social Accountability Monitoring k. Vocational training on different agricultural and livestock techniques l. Vocational training on food processing m. Other (please specify) B.4.3. If you found the training to be not at all useful 17. Which of the following statements best explain the reasons why you did not find the training or workshops on [Training Topic] useful to your responsibilities? [If respondent says “Not at all useful” for topics in Q16 [Pulled topic list]: Please read each response option to the respondent and check the ones s/he agrees with. a. The topic was not relevant to me b. The topic taught was not relevant to the local conditions c. The training method used was difficult for me to follow and understand d. The training did not meet some of my expectations e. The training did not meet any of my expectations f. The training materials used were not sufficient/enough to make the topic understandable g. The training facilitator was moving so fast and hence unable to follow the topic being taught h. Any other reason? (please specify) B.4.4. Quality of the training 18. How would you rate the quality of the workshops or training you attended? Training topic Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don’t Know/Unable to rate a. VICOBA group formation and resource management b. Income-generating activity (IGA) identification, planning and management c. Natural Resource Management related to wildlife d. Natural Resource Management related to forests e. Natural Resource Management related to land f. Natural Resource Management related to water g. Developing and enforcing by laws to manage and regulate village water, land, forest and wildlife resources h. Climate Change i. Climate Smart Practices like tree planning, kitchen gardens and energy saving j. Social Accountability Monitoring k. Vocational training on different agricultural and livestock techniques l. Vocational training on food processing m. Other (please specify) B.4.5 You found the quality of the training to be poor 19. Which of the following statements best explain the reason(s) why you found the training on [training topic] to be of poor quality? [Reasons for answers in Q 18 – pulled list of topics [If respondent says quality is “Very Poor” or “Poor” for topic in Q18: Please read each response option to respondent and check the ones s/he agrees with] 1. The training was not well organized 2. The training did not meet some of my expectations 3. The training did not meet any of my expectations 4. The training method used was difficult for me to follow and understand 5. The training materials used were not sufficient/enough to make the topic understandable 6. Time allocated for the training was not enough 7. The training facilitator was moving so fast hence unable to follow the topic being taught 8. Other (please specify) B.5 Knowledge Utilization and Capacity Change B.5.1 Knowledge Utilization 20. To what extent have you used or applied the knowledge or skills gained from the workshops or training(s)? Training topic Not at all Just a little Moderate extent A lot a. VICOBAs/VLSA b. Natural Resource Management related to wildlife c. Natural Resource Management related to forests d. Natural Resource Management related to land e. Natural Resource Management related to water f. Development and enforcement of bylaws for managing village natural resources g. Climate Change h. Climate Smart Practices i. Social Accountability Monitoring j. Income Generating Activities k. Vocational trainings on agricultural, livestock or food processing l. Other (please specify) B.5.2. Capacity Changes as a Result of Knowledge or Skills Gained 21. To what extent would you say the knowledge or skills that you gained have strengthened your capacity to participate in natural resource management and environmentally-friendly income￾generating activities in your village and district? - Not at all Very little Somewh at To a great extent Don’t Know/ Can’t rate Participate in a VICOBA or manage its operation and resources Develop or expand environmentally-friendly income generating activities Implement a land use plan or the participatory land use planning process in villages Monitor and enforce village bylaws regarding land and natural resource use and management Participate in the management and governance of forest resources Participate in the management and governance of wildlife resources Participate in the management and governance of water resources Participate in the management and governance of land resources Engage in Social Accountability Monitoring Understand actions that can be taken in your community to help mitigate the effects of Climate Change Engage in climate smart practices like tree planting, kitchen garden or energy saving Undertake new agricultural, livestock raising practices that may increase income and better protect or conserve natural resources Undertake new food processing activities that may increase income and better protect or conserve natural resources Other (please specify) B.6. If Knowledge did not strengthen the capacity 22. Please provide an explanation Why do you say the knowledge or skills you gained have not strengthened your capacity? B.7. Individual and Organizational Capacity Change 23. To what extent have the RNRG workshops, training and related support changed the capacity of your organization [from Question 8] to manage natural resources in your village / villages in your district? a. Not at all b. Just a little c. Moderately d. Very much e. Don’t know/can’t rate 24. [Question asked only to villagers that are not members of any committees] To what extent has the RNRG workshops, trainings and related support changed your capacity to hold institutions and committees in your village that manage natural resources accountable for their responsibilities? a. Not at all b. Just a little c. Moderately d. Very much e. Don’t know/can’t rate B.8. Recommendations 25. What (if any) challenges do you see remaining and constraining your organization's ability to manage natural resources? Comment: __________________________ 26. What (if any) additional training, support, or other type of activity would most be needed to improve your organization’s ability to manage natural resources? Comment: __________________________ 27. What recommendations would you give for design of similar/related capacity building activities in the future? [If you do not have any recommendations please write "NONE" in the text box] Comment: __________________________ C7. Survey completion date and time: [Date and Time Format] Choice List for Q11 - Positions District Level Division/Ward Level At Village Level Beekeeping Officer Ward Executive Officer Village Executive Officer Planning Officer Councilor Member of Village Council Community Development Officer Ward Education Coordinator Village Chairperson Land Officer Division Officer Subvillage/Harmlet chairperson Environmental Officer Ward Extension Officer Head of primary school Forest Officer Member of Ward Tribunal Environmental teacher Agriculture Officer Head teacher secondary school Member of SAM Commitees Wildlife Ranger (Askari wanyama pori)/Game officer Environmental Teacher Natural Resource Monitor Natural Resource Officer Member of Water Users Association (WUA)/ CBWSOs Community leader / Influential person Wildlife Officer (Afisa Maliasili) - Resource person Water Engineers - Member of VSLA / VICOBA group Afisa Madini - A Villager Thank you very much for your participation in this survey! ANNEX 5: SOURCES OF INFORMATION RNRG Project Documents and Other Background Material SN Document Name 1. Project Description / PPT PRESENTATION 2. Baseline Report 3. OCA Assessment report - RUSUDEO 4. RNRG MEL Plan / PMP 5. Annual Workplan FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2021 6. Annual Report FY 2020 and Quarter 3 Report April 01 – June 30, 2020 7. Annual Report FY 2021, Quarter 1, January 01 – March 30, 2021, and Quarter 3, April 01-June 30, 2021 8. National Land Use Guideline 9. Guideline for Land Use Plan – 3rd edition 10. Village Land Use Plans for 4 villages 11. Training Manuals – LUP, NRM, SAM, IGA, etc. 12. Database of Trained Participants with contacts information16. 13. IEC materials and Media Program Scripts 14. Performance Data – KPIs Table for IR1, IR2, IR3, IR4 – from 2020 to March 2022 15. Result chain threats – situation models _ NRG and for each IRs 16. SAM reports Reports and other background docs from partner IP 17. LTA (monthly report no 57) August 1st -31st 2020 18. LTA (monthly report no 58) September 1st – 31st 2020 19. LTA (annual report, 2020) 16 For the stakeholders' list and Trained Participants, it will be great to have detailed contact information with the following variables “Type of stakeholder, Name, location, email, phone and/or alternative contact” SN Document Name Other relevant literature and materials 20. Natural Resource Governance Assessment – March April 2019 21. National Environmental Policy 22. National climate change response strategy 2021 - 2026 23. National Climate Change Communication Strategy (2013) 24. National Land Policy,1995 25. The Land Act No. 4 of 1999 26. The Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999 27. The Land Use Planning Act No. 6 of 2007 28. The Environmental Management Act No. 20 of 2004 ANNEX 6: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523