Africare/Tanzania
PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION REPORT
FOR
THE UGALLA COMMUNITY CONSERVATION 
PROJECT, TABORA, TANZANIA
By
Prof. George C. Kajembe Ph.D (Social Forestry), M.Sc (NRM), B.Sc (Forestry), Diploma 
(Forestry), Post Graduate Studies in Institutional Analysis.
E-mail: kajembe@suanet.ac.tz
Mr. Deo-Gratias M. Gamassa M.Sc (NRM), B.Sc (Forestry), Diploma (Wildlife), Post 
Graduate Studies in Biodiversity Project Planning.
 E-mail: dmg@mwekawildlife.org
Mr. Bariki K. Kaale M.Sc (Planning), B.Sc (Forestry), Diploma (Forestry), Post 
Graduate Studies in Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 
Extension and Communication Skills, Gender, Sociology and 
Rural Energy 
E-mail: bkkaale@yahoo.com
APRIL 2004
UCCP Extension Grant # 623-A-98-00-0013-00
SO8 - Improved Conservation of Coastal Resources and Wildlife in Targeted Areas
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page ii of 66
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page iii of 66
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ugalla Community Conservation Project (UCCP) was initiated in 1998 to address problems
related to natural resources conservation, environment, poverty and institutional issues in Ugalla.
The main goal of the project was “to create a foundation for sustainable community-based 
conservation and natural resource management around Ugalla Game Reserve”. Attainment of 
this goal was expected to contribute to USAID/Tanzania strategic objective two (SO2)
“Improved conservation of coastal and wildlife resources in targeted areas”. A participatory 
evaluation of UCCP was conducted during November 2003, to assess what was planned to be 
done in 1998, what has been done to date (2003) and what needs to be done in the future to 
improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem.
Discussions held with communities and field observations indicated that both fauna and flora
have improved over the past five years. Wildlife sightings were reported to have increased both
in designated pilot wildlife management areas (pWMAs) and communal lands.
UCCP conducted training in Participatory Rural Appraisal and Participatory Land Use
Management. The training increased communities’ awareness on the importance of conservation
and wise use of natural resources. It also resulted in communities setting aside 541,000 hectares 
of land for natural resources conservation, out of which 341,000 hectares have been set aside as 
pilot wildlife management areas. This has enabled the government to declare two pWMAs in
UCCP target areas (Uyumbu and Ipole).
The project enabled private manufacturers to fabricate resource-harnessing equipment: ram
presses, top-bar hives and improved stoves. The project has also trained a number of village
natural resources scouts, who have significantly reduced illegal resource use in Ugalla.
Furthermore the project has increased the income of target beneficiaries to a great extent through
encouraging adoption of improved technologies.
The project facilitated Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda districts to initiate 15 functioning
community based natural resources management committees. Furthermore, 9 village
governments were facilitated to set into operation audit worth accounting systems.
Going through project reports and discussions held with key functional officers in the project, it
was difficult if not impossible to identify cost centers and related activities. This made it difficult 
to assess project efficiency. On the other hand, UCCP has generally shown to be effective
despite observed ambiguity in defining targets to be accomplished. Various reports and field 
observations confirmed that UCCP’s interventions are relevant to target beneficiaries. The
presence of producer associations and the fact that women are now involved in traditionally
exclusive men’s economic activities, such as beekeeping and fish farming, is a good indication of 
project sustainability.
UCCP used a number of strategies to attain its objectives. The most outstanding ones were:
Community awareness creation through training and improving equity through use of gender and
environmentally friendly enterprises.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page iv of 66
Some of the outstanding challenges and constraints encountered during implementation of UCCP 
included: the reluctance of natural resource managers to let their “Power Go” to local
communities, conflicts of interests due to some corrupt leaders and state of insecurity for village 
natural resources scouts resulting from lack of legal recognition, protection and lack of defined
financial support while on duty.
Participants who attended a two days participatory evaluation workshop in Tabora (November 14 
-15, 2003) clearly indicated that beneficiaries were satisfied with UCCP’s performance and
achievements. Participants resolved that the project should be extended. They identified the
following strengths and opportunities that should be used during implementation of extension of
UCCP: community support to UCCP, abundance and diversified natural resource base, existence 
of supportive policies and legal instruments, and political will on sustainable natural resources
management for poverty alleviation.
Main weaknesses and threats that the project will have to monitor and resolve to improve
conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem include: limited financial and skilled human resources, lack of
baseline data on natural resource base, inadequate monitoring of project performance, conflict of
interest among natural resource managers and practitioners, inadequate motivation to village
natural resources scouts, poverty, influx of refugees, deforestation caused by tobacco cultivation
and unreliable markets. The evaluation team noted weaknesses in UCCP’s monitoring system
that needs to be improved to ensure that UCCP’s data that input to SO2 Performance Monitoring 
Plan meets desired quality.
The importance of institutional capacity building in community based natural resource
management and the importance of social capital in sustaining community based natural
resources management initiatives are among the most important lessons learned during the
implementation of UCCP. UCCP has developed a foundation for community participation in
management and conservation of natural resources both in the project and non-project villages. 
The project has positively influenced local communities’ resource use practices to a larger extent 
and has succeeded in gender mainstreaming. However scaling up successful income generating
activities such as beekeeping, fish farming, cultivation of sunflower and palm oil will
significantly contribute to poverty reduction and enhance conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem.
The evaluation team recommends that UCCP should continue to look for alternative cash crops 
to tobacco, develop baseline data (resource base and institutional/organizational aspects), and
consider new emerging stakeholders needs. Village natural resource committees should remain 
accountable to local communities and Africare should be a ‘Power Broker” between the private 
sector and local communities and it is important to integrate traditional institutions in the
management of Ugalla Ecosystem.
Community Based Natural Resources Management approaches in UCCP must be flexible and
adapted to fit local contexts, complexities and emerging needs. There is also a need to review the 
UCCP Memorandum of Understanding to accommodate the newly formed Ugalla Ecosystem
Working Group and the inclusion of Uyui District in the project.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page v of 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................................................V
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................VIII
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Paradigm shift towards community based natural resources management...................................1
1.1.2 Ugalla Community Conservation Project ............................................................................................1
1.2 WHY PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION?..........................................................................................................4
2. OBJECTIVES, EXPECTED RESULTS AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................6
2.1 OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Overall Objective......................................................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................................................6
2.2 EXPECTED RESULTS........................................................................................................................................7
2.3 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................7
2.3.1 Conceptual frame work for evaluating UCCP.....................................................................................7
2.3.2 Data Collection.........................................................................................................................................8
3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS UNDERLYING THE PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION............................10
3.2 PROGRESS AND IMPACT OF UCCP TO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE TWO (IMPROVED CONSERVATION OF 
COASTAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE IN TARGET AREAS)....................................................................11
3.3 CONTRIBUTION OF UCCP OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS TO SO2 ..............................................................13
3.3.1 Objective One- Awareness Created and Support Secured for conservation and responsible use of 
resources in UGR, surrounding Forest Reserves and non-protected areas................................ 13
3.3.2 Objective Two – Responsible Resource Utilization Practices Undertaken by Resource Users15
3.3.3 Objective Three: Approaches Tested and Accepted for CBNRM.................................................. 15
3.3.4 Objective Four: Income Levels Increased for Rural Women through the use of Environmentally 
Sound Small Enterprises....................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.5 Objective Five: Organizations and Institutions Strengthened for Sustainable Natural Resource 
Conservation........................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 UCCP’S EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY.......................................23
3.4.1 Project Efficiency................................................................................................................................... 23
3.4.2 Project Effectiveness............................................................................................................................. 23
3.4.3 Project Relevance.................................................................................................................................. 24
3.4.4 Project Sustainability............................................................................................................................ 25
3.5 STRATEGIES USED BY UCCP IN IMPLEMENTING DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD
.........................................................................................................................................................................26
3.6 CONSTRAINTS ENCOUNTERED AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS..................................................................28
3.7 COLLABORATION BETWEEN PARTNERS IN THE UGALLA ECOSYSTEM.................................................29
3.8 PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT UCCP’S MANAGEMENT REGIME WORKING GROUPS
.........................................................................................................................................................................30
3.9 BENEFICIARIES’ SATISFACTION, CONSENSUS AND THE WAY FORWARD...............................................31
3.10 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT).................................................31
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page vi of 66
4. LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................................ 33
4.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING IN COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCES 
MANAGEMENT (CBRM)...............................................................................................................................33
4.2 THE EXISTENCE OF ILLEGAL RESOURCE USERS IN UGALLA ECOSYSTEM.............................................33
4.3 STATE OF INSECURITY FACING VILLAGE GAME SCOUTS........................................................................33
4.4 LACK OF MOTIVATION TO VILLAGE GAME SCOUTS.................................................................................33
4.5 ADOPTION OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES.......................................33
4.6 THE NEED FOR CROP RESEARCH..................................................................................................................33
4.7 WOMEN EMPOWERMENT VERSUS TRADITIONAL NORMS.........................................................................34
4.8 THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEARLY DEFINED PROPERTY RIGHTS..................................................................34
4.9 THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN SUSTAINING COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCES 
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES........................................................................................................................34
4.10 THE DILEMMA OF LET THE “POWER GO”....................................................................................................34
4.11 PROJECT SPILL-OVERS..................................................................................................................................35
4.12 IMPACT OF ROLE MODELS............................................................................................................................35
4.13 VICTIMIZATION OF SEEMINGLY COMMITTED ACTORS.............................................................................35
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 36
5.1 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................36
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................36
5.2.1 The need for alternative cash crops.................................................................................................... 36
5.2.2 The Importance of Baseline Data ....................................................................................................... 36
5.2.3 Synergies between Sunflower and Beekeeping ................................................................................. 37
5.2.4 The importance of taking into consideration the needs of different stakeholders...................... 37
5.2.5 Village Natural Resource Management Committees to remain accountable to the local communities
................................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2.6 The Importance of Social learning process in CBNRM.................................................................. 37
5.2.7 Africare as a “Power Broker” between the private sector and local communities................... 38
5.2.8 The need to integrate Traditional Institutions in the Management of the Ugalla Ecosystem.. 38
5.2.9 The need for flexible approaches........................................................................................................ 38
5.2.10 The need to review the UCCP Memorandum of Understanding.................................................. 39
5.2.11 Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation System.......................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 40
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 44
ANNEX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EVALUATION OF UGALLA COMMUNITY 
CONSERVATION PROJECT ........................................................................................................44
ANNEX 2 OFFICIALS CONTACTED............................................................................................................52
ANNEX 3 AFRICARE - UCCP EVALUATION WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS (14-15 /11/2003).56
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page vii of 66
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CBC Community Based Conservation
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management
CBO Community Based Organization
FBD Forestry and Beekeeping Division 
FCO Field Conservation Officer
FR Forest Reserve
GR Game Reserve
HASHI Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga
IR Intermediate Results
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation
NGO Non Governmental Organization
PLUM Participatory Land Use Management Planning
PMP Project Monitoring Plan
PMT Project Management Team
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
pWMA Pilot Wildlife Management Area
SO Strategic Objective
UCCP Ugalla Community Conservation Project
UGR Ugalla Game Reserve
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VFR Village Forest Reserve
VGS Village Game Scout
VNRMC Village Natural Resources Management Committee
WD Wildlife Division
ZAPU Zonal Anti-Poaching Unit
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page viii of 66
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team would like to sincerely thank Africare -Tanzania for providing the financial
and logistic support, which enabled the evaluation to be conducted successfully. Cooperation
and continuous support from Africare-Tanzania officials, namely: Ms. Cheryl Danley, Resident
Representative and Mr. Alfred G. Kalaghe, Agro-Environmental Advisor are deeply appreciated. 
The Ugalla Community Conservation Project officials namely Mr. Shidumu Mawe, Mr. Elia
Mgalihya, Mr. S. Salema and Mr. E. Massawe, provided technical support and participated
periodically in facilitating the evaluation. We are also grateful to all other Africare-Tanzania 
officials for their support.
Mr. Peter Ottaru, from Wildlife Division, Dar es Salaam, Mr. Charles Msilanga from Ugalla
Game Reserve, Mr. Massawe from Ugalla Community Conservation Project and Ms N.M.
Udangu from Urambo Community Development Department accompanied the evaluation team
in the field trip and provided important guidance and clarification on issues discussed with
various stakeholders. We are very thankful for their contributions.
During the evaluation, discussions were held with various policy and decision makers from
national, regional and district levels. These discussions were very instrumental in the process of
implementing the evaluation through sharing of experiences and providing guidelines for the
way forward. We are greatly indebted to USAID and Tanzania Government officials who
actively participated in the discussions namely: Mr. Emmanuel Severre, Director, Wildlife
Division; Mr. Daniel C. Moore, Team Leader - Environmental Program, USAID/Tanzania; Mr. 
Asukile R. Kajuni, Project Management Specialist – NRM, USAID/Tanzania; and Mr. Gilbert
Kajuna, Project Management Specialist – Environment, USAID/Tanzania.
A two days participatory workshop held in Tabora town provided inputs to the evaluation.
Officials who participated in the workshop included: One Senior Game Officer from Wildlife
Division, Dar es Salaam, and Representatives from Tabora Regional Secretariat, Ugalla Game
Reserve Manager, District Commissioners, District Council Chairpersons and District
Development Directors from Urambo, Sikonge, Mpanda and Uyui districts. Various district
functional officers, representatives from CBOs, Women groups, Village Natural Resource
Management Committees and Village Game Scouts from Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda districts 
also participated. The workshop provided valuable inputs for the evaluation process. We are
thankful to all the participants for their valuable contributions.
A debriefing meeting held at Protea Hotel, Dar es Salaam on 11th December 2003 and attended 
by officials from USAID, WWF, FBD, WD, GREEN-COM, UGR, UCCP and Africare￾Tanzania discussed the initial draft of the report and provided valuable inputs, which contributed 
to the improvement of this report. We are very much thankful to the contributions provided.
Similarly, the success of this evaluation was greatly attributed to the active participation of
villagers, village government officials, village environmental committee members, village game
scouts and women groups residing within the Ugalla Community Conservation Project who were 
consulted. We are greatly indebted to all of them.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page ix of 66
We would also like to sincerely acknowledge the contribution of the devoted and disciplined
UCCP driver Mr. Julius Michael who drove us during the entire period of the fieldwork.
Lastly, we would like to say that all good things from this evaluation report are common
property, but the shortcomings are solely ours.
Prof. George C. Kajembe
Mr. Deo-Gratias M. Gamassa
Mr. Bariki K. Kaale
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 1 of 66
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 
1.1.1 Paradigm shift towards community based natural resources management 
In recent years, coinciding with the mainstreaming of participatory approaches in development
theory and practice, there has been a paradigm shift advocating that local resource users and their 
institutions should play an active role in the protection and management of natural resources (Jodha 
and Bhatia, 1998 and Ainslie, 1999). Concomitant and complementary to this, was a recognition
that state control has been largely unsuccessful, costly and financially unsustainable requiring new
and more devolved approaches to local level natural resource management (Shackleton et. al., 
2001).
In Tanzania, within the past five years, substantial reforms have taken place in the natural resources 
sector, following the adoption of a number of new policies such as Forest Policy, Wildlife Policy
and Beekeeping Policy (MNRT 1998a, MNRT 1998b & MNRT 1998c). As a result, Community
Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) has received considerable development and
research attention. There has been considerable progress in devolving power over natural resources 
from state to local communities (Kajembe et. al., 2003, MNRT 2001).
1.1.2 Ugalla Community Conservation Project 
1.1.2.1 Project Initiation
Ugalla Community Conservation Project (UCCP) was initiated with an aim of developing a
foundation for community participation in the management and wise use of natural resources in
Ugalla Ecosystem (Africare 1997). The Project was established to address a number of problems in
Ugalla ecosystem related to resource use, environment, poverty and institutional issues. Ugalla
Community Conservation Project was initiated with the following main goal: “Foundation created 
for sustainable community based conservation and natural resource management around Ugalla 
Game Reserve (UGR)’’.
The Project had the following specific objectives namely:
· Awareness created and support secured for conservation and responsible use of resources in
UGR, surrounding Forest Reserves (FRs) and non-protected areas. This entailed changing
attitudes and acceptance of joint responsibility by communities and government officials
working in Ugalla and adjoining districts.
· Responsible resource utilization practices undertaken by resource users. This entailed
promotion of appropriate technologies and techniques that were environmentally friendly
which were expected to lead to improved efficiency in resource use.
· Approaches tested and accepted for community management of natural resources. In this
objective UCCP was supposed to assist communities, technical agencies and district
governments to develop new systems for managing natural resources that ensure equitable
sharing of benefits resulting from their participation in conservation.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 2 of 66
· Income levels of rural women and men increased through the use of environmentally sound
small enterprises. These enterprises were expected to provide tangible benefit to
communities.
· Organizations and Institutions strengthened to enable them carry out sustainable natural
resource conservation.
1.1.2.2 Project Evolution
The project has been evolving over the last five years (1998-2003). A midterm review of the project 
took place in the year 2000 whereby USAID project design was adopted. The design is based on
results SO2 results framework, which is hierarchically divided into thematic Strategic Objectives,
Intermediate Results (IRs), Outputs and Activities (Africare 2000a, Africare 2002 a and Africare
2002b). 
The UCCP contributes to Strategic Objective Two (SO2), “Improved Conservation of Coastal 
and Wildlife Resources in Targeted Areas”. This Strategic Objective has several Intermediate
Results (IRs). Figure presents a summary of USAID/Tanzania SO2 Results Framework related to
UCCP.
An overview of UCCP objectives, Original UCCP intermediate results and current USAID
intermediate results UCCP’s activities have attempted to attain over the years is presented in table
1.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 3 of 66
Figure 1: USAID/Tanzania SO2 Results Framework related to UCCP
IR 2.1.2 Increased 
local and business 
participation in 
policy process
IR 2.4: Community natural 
resources functioning at 
target areas
IR 2.4.1: Authority to 
manage wildlife and 
other natural resources 
vested at community 
level 
IR 2.4.2: 
Community skills 
improved
IR 2.4.1.2: 
Increased 
effectiveness of 
organizations that 
support resource 
users
IR 2.2: Increased 
effectiveness of 
institutions that 
support natural 
resources conservation
IR 2.2.1 
Human 
capacity of 
targeted 
institutions 
improved
IR 2.2.2 
Targeted 
institutions 
implement 
improvement 
strategies
IR 2.4.2.1. Increased 
community awareness 
of natural resource 
values, opportunities 
and constraints
SO2 Objective: Improved conservation of coastal 
and wildlife resources in target areas
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 4 of 66
Table 1: Overview of UCCP objectives and related Old UCCP IRs and Current USAID IRs
UCCP OBJECTIVES
Original UCCP IR Current USAID IR
Objective 1: Awareness 
creation and support 
secured
IR 2.3.4. Increase Community 
awareness of natural resource 
values, opportunities, and 
constraints
2.4.2.1 Increased community 
awareness of natural resources 
values, opportunities and 
constraints
Objective 2: Responsible 
resource utilization 
practices
IR2.3.2. Increased adoption of 
sustainable natural resource 
management and enterprise 
practices
IR 2.4 Community Natural 
Resources management 
functioning at target areas.
Objective 3:Approaches 
tested and accepted for 
CBNRM 
IR2.3.1 Community natural 
resource management regimes 
functioning in targeted areas
IR 2.4 Community Natural 
Resources management 
functioning at target areas.
Objective 4: Income levels 
increased for rural women 
using environmentally 
sound small enterprises.
IR 2.3.3: Improved technical and 
enterprise management skill of 
community residents
IR 2.4 Community Natural 
Resources management 
functioning at target areas.
IR 2.3.7: Increased effectiveness of 
organizations that support resource 
users
IR 2.4.1.2 Increased effectiveness 
of organizations that support 
resource users
2.3.5: Strengthened natural 
resource use regulatory capacity 
by targeted community.
2.4.2.1 Increased community 
awareness of natural resources 
values, opportunities and 
constraints
Objective 5: Organizations 
and institutions 
strengthened for 
sustainable natural 
resource management and 
utilization
IR 2.3.6: Authority to manage 
wildlife and other natural resources 
vested at the community level.
2.4.1 Authority to manage wildlife 
and other Natural Resources 
vested at community level.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 5 of 66
1.2 Why Participatory Evaluation?
Participatory evaluation involves feedback on information from stakeholders (Kajembe, 1994).
Participatory evaluation is important means of detecting unforeseen outcomes, which may have
diverse effects on stakeholders, and checking the validity of the project objectives and activities
(FAO, 1985).
Participatory evaluation conducted in UCCP was intended to answer questions of project efficiency, 
effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability. The importance of Participatory Evaluation has
been emphasized by a number of writers. Stephens (1988 in Kajembe 1994) indicated that in
building up a social or economic structure in which people are helped to take charge of their lives, 
there is no substitute for honest feedback on the process. While emphasizing on this, Rugh (1986 in
Kajembe, 1994), commented that “unless the results of the last years’ objectives are measured and 
analyzed how can subsequent objectives be realistically set?
Participatory evaluation carried out in Ugalla Community Conservation Project will serve dual
purposes: as a management tool which will enable the management to improve efficiency and
effectiveness; also as an educational process, in which stakeholders will increase their awareness
and understanding of the various factors affecting the project, thus increasing their control over the
development process. Furthermore, participatory evaluation carried out in UCCP can be an effective 
means of increasing self-reliance and ownership of the project.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 6 of 66
2. OBJECTIVES, EXPECTED RESULTS AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Objectives
2.1.1 Overall Objective 
The overall objective of the evaluation was to assess in historical perspectives what was planned to 
be done in 1998, what has been done to date and what needs to be done in the future to improve 
conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem in light of the new direction of the project.
2.1.2 Specific Objectives 
Specifically the Terms of Reference required the evaluation team to carry out the following tasks
(see Annex 1):
(i) Evaluate UCCP’S progress and its impact to strategic objective two (Improved
Conservation of Coastal Resources and Wildlife in Target Areas).
(ii) Evaluate UCCP’s objectives and results and find out whether these have indeed
contributed to SO2 results framework and identify gaps that need to be filled during
implementation of the “Proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003”.
(iii) Evaluate UCCP’s efficiency and effectiveness in addressing issues that were identified at 
the beginning of the project.
(iv) Evaluate UCCP’s sustainability strategy and identify gaps that should be addressed
during implementation of the “Proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September
2003”.
(v) Evaluate strategies used by UCCP for implementing different interventions and come up
with recommendations that will improve implementation of future community based
conservation activities in Ugalla Ecosystem.
(vi) Identify key project activities that should continue to be implemented along with other
activities listed in the proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003, which
will improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem.
(vii) Identify constraints that have been encountered in the implementation of the project and 
suggest ways to overcome them for the smooth implementation of future CBNRM
activities in Ugalla Ecosystem.
(viii) Evaluate progress of collaborative activities undertaken jointly by UCCP, SUA-TU 
Linkage Project, Green Com II, and WD and identify overlap to be avoided, gaps to be 
filled and synergies required to optimize use of resources to improve conservation of
Ugalla Ecosystem and achieve SO2.
(ix) Evaluate performance and effectiveness of different UCCP’s Project Management
regime working groups, the planning process, performance-monitoring plan, reporting
and financial management, and identify gaps that need to be filled for efficient
implementation of Proposal for Extension of UCCP beyond September 2003.
(x) Assess beneficiaries’ satisfaction and develop consensus with all key stakeholders on the 
way forward.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 7 of 66
2.2 Expected results 
The evaluation team was expected to produce the following results:
(i) Indicate major achievements and shortcomings of UCCP.
(ii) Indicate what the project was supposed to do, what has been done and what needs to be 
done in the future.
(iii) Indicate strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities that can be used for
streamlining future CBNRM activities in Ugalla Ecosystem.
(iv) Develop consensus with all stakeholders on strategies for implementing UCCP beyond
September, 2003.
(v) Show major ecological impacts that have been achieved and what needs to be achieved 
in the future.
(vi) Clearly indicate synergies between partners working in Ugalla Ecosystem that will
optimize use of resources to improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem and ensure that 
communities accrue maximum benefits from their participation in conservation of
Ugalla Ecosystem.
2.3 Methodology 
2.3.1 Conceptual frame work for evaluating UCCP
The conceptual framework as indicated in figure 2 guided the evaluation. The conceptual
framework put into perspective the main aspects underlying the project namely: natural resource
base (forests, wildlife, beekeeping and fisheries), institutional and socio-economic aspects (short
and long term benefits).
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 8 of 66
Figure 2 Conceptual framework for the evaluation of UCCP
3 Evaluation -
2003
Results/ 
outcomes in 
respect to 
resource base
Results/outcomes
 in respect to 
institutional/
organizational 
aspects
Results/
outcomes in 
respect to 
socio￾economic 
aspects
2 Implementation -
1998 to 2003
Indicators to 
capture changes 
in natural 
resource base
Indicators to
capture 
institutional/
organizational 
changes
Indicators to
capture 
socio￾economic 
changes
1 Commencement 
– 1998
Natural 
resource base 
(Forests, 
Wildlife, 
Beekeeping and 
Fisheries)
Institutional/
organizational 
aspects
Socio￾economic 
aspects
Direction 
of change
2.3.2 Data Collection 
2.3.2.1 Secondary Data
A number of published and unpublished documents were consulted both at Africare/Tanzania
Country Office in Dar es Salaam, at Ugalla Community Conservation Project in Tabora, and from
other sources including Government Offices, USAID and Universities. Such pre-existing data were 
both qualitative and quantitative. The data from these documents served dual purposes, first they
saved considerable time and expense and secondly, they acted as checkpoints for the primary data 
collected from the field.
2.3.2.2 Community level
The evaluation team utilized mostly participatory techniques in data collection such as historical
trends and group discussions.
2.3.2.3 Decision Making/Functional Officers’ Levels
Discussions were among the main techniques used to collect information at the Decision
Making/Functional Officers’ levels. Discussions were basically held with regional, district, division,
and ward decision makers and functional officers including the UCCP Management Team, and
other functional officers in Sikonge, Urambo and Mpanda districts. The idea was to triangulate
information so as to achieve objectivity and reliability and reduce bias inherent in these types of
data collection techniques.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 9 of 66
The discussions were participatory, interactive and of “round table” nature. The Evaluation Team
used pre-designed checklists to solicit information on the extent of natural resource conservation
and management in the Ugalla ecosystem, socio-economic and institutional aspects and encountered 
management problems over the period under review.
2.3.2.4 Participatory Workshop
A two days participatory evaluation workshop for key stakeholders was conducted at Uhazili
Training Institute in Tabora. Decision makers from Tabora Regional Secretariat, Sikonge, Urambo,
Mpanda and Uyui districts along with their functional officers attended this workshop. Similarly,
leaders of women groups, village natural resource management committees, resource producers’
associations and Village Natural Resources Scouts attended the workshop (Annex 3).
Participatory workshops have often been referred to as “Re-orientation workshops” (Gronow and
Shrestha, 1998 in Kajembe and Kessy 1999). In this workshop, there was no teacher/pupil
relationship, rather it was accepted that every one had something to contribute to the evaluation
process. The objective was to encourage stakeholders to learn from their own experiences and to 
gauge stakeholders’ satisfaction on UCCP’s performance.
The facilitators (Evaluation Team) had to listen and understand stakeholders’ perspectives on
UCCP. In addition, the workshop methodology itself provided new experiences. Since agreement
by group consensus is usually the key factor in CBNRM, the workshop was designed to show the 
stakeholders how consensus can be reached by actually experiencing it. “Reflections” enabled the
stakeholders to re-evaluate their attitudes, values and roles in the project. The facilitators
encouraged reflections by posing challenging questions. Invaluably in an open but challenging
climate of the workshop, prevalent attitudes gave way to more honest ones. In short, the facilitators 
took the opportunity to conduct the evaluation not as a “passive” review of what has and has not 
been achieved but as a learning experience for the stakeholders.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 10 of 66
3. FINDINGS
3.1 Definition of Key Concepts Underlying the Participatory Evaluation
To enhance stakeholders’ effective and open participation in the evaluation, introductory
clarification on key concepts underlying the evaluation was provided. The understanding was
important to facilitate collection and systematic recording of data. Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) is defined as “The collection and management of information to be analyzed and used for 
the regular and periodic assessment of a project’s or program’s relevance, performance, efficiency 
and impact in the context of its stated objectives.” Project’s M&E system is a subset of the overall 
“management information system” and it is concerned, specifically, with assessing achievement of
a project’s objectives (Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway 1993).
Monitoring refers to regular, ongoing collection, analysis and use of information within the project
(Kajuni &Nasser 2003). Evaluation, on the other hand, is the formal, periodic assessment of
available information usually involving key stakeholders within and outside the project. Project
M&E is about assessing a project’s performance against its stated objectives covering final goal,
immediate objective, outputs, activities, annual work plans and assumptions. The primary objective
of project M&E is to assist the project and its partners to implement the project effectively through 
progressive evaluation of project implementation strengths and weaknesses. The Mid Term
Evaluation report for UCCP was cited as a good example on the importance of progressive project 
monitoring as a management tool (Africare 2002b).
In evaluation, the emphasis is normally on five main general components namely: efficiency,
effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability. It is also important to monitor the critical
assumptions that relate to the project’s strategy, the operating context (e.g. government policy), or 
the contributions of project collaborators that were envisaged at the project design stage as being
critical to the success of the project. As a project proceeds it is important to check that the
assumptions were, firstly, realistic and, secondly, that they remain valid.
Project efficiency is the measure of outputs of the project, qualitative or quantitative in relation to 
total resource inputs. In other words, it is a measure on how economically various inputs of the
project are converted into outputs.
Project effectiveness is the extent to which project objectives have been achieved or can be
expected to be achieved. Assessing effectiveness presupposes that project objectives have been
unambiguously and operationally defined with clear and appropriate outputs/indicators so as to
make verification possible.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 11 of 66
Project impact. The concept of impact is far broader as it includes both positive and negative
consequences whether these are foreseen and expected or not. In assessing project impacts the point 
of departure must be on how the project purpose has been defined and the degree of effectiveness 
achieved. Then, which other effects whether negative or positive are expected or unforeseen – have 
come about as a result of the project. These may be economic, social, political, technical or
environmental effects. Different impacts may appear at varying times; attention should be paid to
both the short and long term impacts of a project 
Project relevance. This concerns whether the rationale behind a project is harmonized with
priorities of the local community and the society in question. On the one hand it is a matter of
direction of the project in relation to its purpose. On the other hand, it means looking at the societal 
changes that may have taken place while the project has been in operation, and asking to what
degree this may alter the rationale for the project. At a certain level it is a question of how well the 
project has succeeded in reaching the target groups, and whether it is directed towards areas to 
which the involved parties have given high priority i.e. poverty eradication
Project sustainability. Project sustainability is an overall assessment of the extent to which
positive changes achieved as a result of the project can be expected to last after the project has been 
terminated. In many cases this is a question of the relation between the necessary use of local
resources and how recipients view the project. Sustainability is the final test of project success.
3.2 Progress and Impact of UCCP to Strategic Objective Two (Improved Conservation of 
Coastal Resources and Wildlife in Target Areas)
Discussions held with communities and field observations in the project area indicated that both
fauna and flora have improved over the past five years. In both designated pilot Wildlife
Management Areas and communal village lands, wildlife sightings were reported to have increased.
Commonly sighted animals include: elephants, reedbucks, greater and lesser kudu, hartebeest,
warthogs, baboons, velvet monkeys and roan antelopes. Communities attested that the increase of
wildlife and elephants in particular has caused some problems including marauding crops in village 
farms. In Mole-Kiloleli village, Sikonge District, it was asserted that in 2002 elephants destroyed
over 27 ha of farmland.
Flora status was also mentioned to have improved particularly where there were village forests
reserves, in-situ conservation (commonly known by the Sukuma as Ngitili), pilot wildlife
management areas and in forest reserves where logging had been closed. Table 2 and figure 3
presents a summary of areas under improved conservation in the project area.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 12 of 66
TABLE 2 CONSERVED FOREST AREA FOR THE PERIOD 1998 TO 2003
District Total area (Ha) Number of 
villages
Forest area in
Ha
Area under 
conservation by 
UCCP (Ha)
Urambo 2,599,500 108 2,308,356 148,635
Sikonge 2,100,000 43 1,969,800 290,638
Mpanda 4,752,700 98 2,770,824 101,853
TOTAL 7,048,980 541,126
Source: Africare 2003a
Taking into consideration the forest area totaling 7,048,980 ha in Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda
Districts compared to the conserved area of 541,126 ha which is about eight percent; one can say
the efforts so far on forest conservation were encouraging. However, the report (Africare 2003a) did 
not provide the legal status and level of conservation attained for the conserved forests under UCCP 
efforts according to the Forest Act 2002 and the Land Act 1999 (FBD 2002, MLHSD 1999a & 
MLHSD 1999b). Concerted efforts are required to improve data collection and reporting of forest 
areas conserved by UCCP.
165000 165000
138523
303523
237603
541126
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Area (ha)
2001 2002 2003
Years
Figure 3: Areas under improved conservation
Actual
Cumulative
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 13 of 66
3.3 Contribution of UCCP objectives and results to SO2
3.3.1 Objective One- Awareness Created and Support Secured for conservation and 
responsible use of resources in UGR, surrounding Forest Reserves and non-protected 
areas
This objective is related to USAID IR 2.4.2.1: Increased community Awareness of Natural
Resource Values, Opportunities and Constraints.
During the last five years, UCCP recruited three Conservation Officers and stationed them in
Urambo, Sikonge, and Mpanda Districts. This was 100% achievement (Table 3). In the same
period the project trained 18 officials on Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) out of 20 targeted, an 
achievement of 90%. Moreover, the project conducted 9 PRA workshops out of 18 targeted, an
achievement of 50%.
Project records indicated that 133,450 mandays out of targeted 150,000 were used by communities 
voluntarily as their contribution in kind during the implementation of Community Based Natural
Resource Management (CBNRM) activities. This is an achievement of 89%. During the period
under review the project conducted 8 community consultations with districts and Ugalla Game
Reserve Management out of targeted 10 meetings, which is an achievement of 80%. Lastly, the 
project conducted one planned baseline socio-economic study (Kaale 1999).
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 14 of 66
TABLE 3 AWARENESS CREATION AND SUPPORT SECURED BY 
UCCP
5 yrs target 
Achievements
Achieve
Initial project objectives and 
current
Main 
indicators/outputs
Units May 1998 to1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year5th yearTotal Percent
USAID IR Sep-03 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02
Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Sep-03
Objective 1 FCOs stationed in districts with 
functioning
Districts 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 100
Awareness created and support 
secured
offices and 
for surrounding Forest Reserves equipments
and non protected 
areas Officials and other stakeholders trained 
in
Officials 20 0 18 0 0 0 18 90
USAID IR 2.4.2.1 PRA and 
CBNRM
Stakeholders 3000 70 716 1579 304 0 2669 89
Increase Community awareness of 
natural resources values opportunities 
and 
PRA conducted in target 
areas
Workshops 18 0 8 1 0 0 9 50
constraints
Number of participants mandays voluntarily spent 
in
Mandays 150000 3500 35800 78950 15200 0 133450 89
community education on 
CBNRMommunity consultation held annually 
with
Meetings 10 2 2 2 1 1 8 80
district and Ugalla GR 
project
Baseline socio-economic study 
conducted
Each 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 100
Source: Africare 1997, Africare 1998, Africare 1999, Africare 2000, Africare 2001 Africare 2002, Africare 
2003a
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 15 of 66
3.3.2 Objective Two – Responsible Resource Utilization Practices Undertaken by 
Resource Users
This objective is related to USAID IR 2.4: Community Natural Resources Management 
Functioning at Target Areas. 
Ugalla Community Conservation Project enabled 91 private manufacturers to fabricate
new resource harnessing equipment including ram presses, top-bar hives and improved
stoves out of 30 targeted manufacturers making an achievement of 303%. Furthermore,
the project trained 1,570 UCCP staff; district officers and villagers in honey and wax
processing out of 40 targeted making an achievement of 3,925%. This seems to be the
highest achievement (Table 4).
The project also facilitated production of 45,150 kg of smoke free honey out of the target 
of 50,000 kg making an achievement of 90%. Beeswax was 11, 442 kg out of the targeted 
12,000 kg making an achievement of 95%. Nonetheless studies on quality and quantity of 
bee products per colony and efficient tobacco curing burns were not conducted.
3.3.3 Objective Three: Approaches Tested and Accepted for CBNRM
This objective is related to USAID IR 2.4: Community Natural Resources Management
Functioning at Target Areas.
The project initiated Participatory Land use Management Planning (PLUM) in 9 out of
42 villages, an achievement of about 21%. The evaluation team considers this activity as 
a “hub” of the project due to the fact that in its logical conclusion it will readdress a 
number of natural resource utilisation and management problems facing the project area
including the ambiguity of land tenure system. 
Similarly, the project initiated two pilot Wildlife Management Areas (pWMAs) in 8
targeted villages making an achievement of 100% (Table 5). There were no pWMAs in
Mpanda district. The UCCP area is rich in wildlife resource and the introduction of
WMAs will bring a closer engagement of local communities in the management of
wildlife and other natural resources and generation of sustainable benefits (Wildlife
Division 2002, Melemari, et al., 2003a&b).
The project trained 151 Village Natural Resources Scouts (VNRS) out of 159 targeted, an 
achievement of 95%. The VNRS who operate under the supervision of Village Natural
Resource Management Committees (VNRMCs) have significantly reduced illegal
resource use practices in village lands and protected areas. For example, in Mole-Kiloleli 
village VNRS apprehended 70 poachers, confiscated 53 fishnets, 35 bicycles, 397
sleepers, 421 logs, 2 rifles, 6 muzzle loaders, 1 leopard skin, 1 lion skin, 167 timber, 27 
pitsaws, 1 chain saw, 4 elephant tusks and 13 assorted ammunitions. Similar success
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 16 of 66
stories were heard from Uruira village in Mpanda district and in Itebulanda village in
Urambo district.
In addition, the project trained 35 Wildlife Game Scouts out of which 14 were from
Ugalla Game Reserve, 11 from Anti-Poaching Unit (Tabora Zone) and 10 from Anti￾Poaching Unit (Manyoni district), an achievement of 100%.
UCCP supported and collaborated with communities to conserve 19,905 ha of Village
Forest Reserve (VFRs) out of the 22,000 ha targeted making an achievement of about
90%. Similarly, the project conserved 351,000 ha as pilot Wildlife Management Areas
out of 372,000 ha initially targeted making an achievement of 94%. Areas set aside as 
VFRs and WMAs do not only conserve wildlife and forests but a wide spectrum of
biodiversity in Ugalla Ecosystem. In this regard the Ugalla-Malagarasi wetland system,
which occupies a greater part of Ugalla Ecosystem, will benefit from effectively managed 
VFRs and WMAs.
The project has managed to put over 132,531 ha under sustainable land use plans, out of 
179,000 ha targeted, which is an achievement of about 74%. Moreover, UCCP has been 
able to apprehend 25 poachers out of 27 targeted making an achievement of about 93%. 
The project also confiscated 5,051 pieces of timber out of 5,100 pieces targeted making
an achievement of 99 % and also confiscated 207 logs out of 210 targeted.
It is the considered opinion of the evaluation team that it is not easy or realistic to set
targets for poachers to be apprehended or pieces of timber to be confiscated. It could be 
wise to monitor the trend of poachers or number of timber pieces confiscated over a
period of time. Improved patrols could result to decline of poachers or increased number 
of poachers apprehended who were earlier not detected (Table 5). 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 17 of 66
TABLE 4 RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE UTILISATION PRACTICES IN UCCP IN 1998-2003
5 yrs target Achievements Achieve
Initial project objectives and current Main indicators/outputs Units May 1998 to 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Total Percent
USAID IR Sep-03 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02
Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Sep-03
Number of private manufacturers fabricating Manufacturers 30 0 60 10 11 10 91 303
Objective No.2 tested new technologies
Responsible resource utilisation practices
undertaken by resource users Users purchasing tested technologies by type
*Furnaces for tobacco curing Furnaces 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
USAID IR 2.4 *Protective beekeeping clothing Clothing 40 0 34 0 0 1536 1570 3925
Community Natural Resources *Honey presses People 50 0 0 0 45 0 45 90
management functioning at target areas *Top bar hives Hives 600 0 439 96 0 5 540 90
*Improved firewood stoves Stoves 1100 0 0 202 0 0 202 18
*Ram press People 2500 0 982 0 0 875 1857 74
Users adapting tested techniques by type
*Efficient tobacco curing barns Each 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Smoke free honey collection Kg 50000 0 45000 100 50 0 45150 90
Beeswax processed Kg 12000 0 0 7109 0 4333 11442 95
Quality and quantity of bee-products per colony
Honey quantity Kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beeswax Kg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Africare 1997, Africare 1998, Africare 1999, Africare 2000, Africare 2001 Africare 2002, Africare 2003a
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 18 of 66
TABLE 5 APPROACHES TESTED AND ACCEPTED FOR CBNRM IN UCCP
5 yrs target Achievements Achieve
Initial project objectives and current Main indicators/outputs Units May 1998 to 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Total Percent
USAID IR Sep-03 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02
Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Sep-03
Number of villages surveyed and receiving land Villages 44 0 0 0 7 2 9 20
Objective No 3 titles
Approaches tested and accepted for Number of villages establishing WMA and Villages 8 0 0 0 0 8 8 100
community management of natural resident hunting programmes
resources Number of village Game Scouts trained/employed Scouts 159 0 0 59 65 27 151 95
Number of WD Scouts trained WD Scouts 35 0 0 0 35 0 35 100
USAID IR 2.4 Area under community conservation
Community Natural Resources *Village Forest Reserves Ha 22000 0 0 0 0 19905 19905 90
management functioning at target areas *Wildlife Management Areas Ha 372000 0 0 0 0 351000 351000 94
*Natural Resource Management Areas Ha 25900 0 0 0 0 20900 20900 81
*Village area under land use plan Ha 179000 0 0 0 0 132571 132571 74
Amount of village revenues generated from WMA Tsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
and other resource management schemes
Changes in number of illegal resource users
apprehended by local population:
* Wildlife poachers Poachers 27 0 0 5 14 6 25 93
* Illegal fishing Fishers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Illegal forest harvesting timber confiscated Pieces 5100 0 0 2055 1884 1112 5051 99
*Illegal forest harvesting logs confiscated Logs 210 0 0 24 58 125 207 99
Source: Africare 1997, Africare 1998, Africare 1999, Africare 2000, Africare 2001 Africare 2002, Africare 2003a
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 19 of 66
3.3.4 Objective Four: Income Levels Increased for Rural Women through the use 
of Environmentally Sound Small Enterprises
This objective is related to USAID IR 2.4: Community Natural Resources Management
Functioning at Target Areas.
During the period under review beneficiaries accrued US$ 20,318 from honey sales out 
of the targeted US$ 21,000 making an achievement of 97% (Table 6). Furthermore, the 
project beneficiaries accrued US$ 13,734 from beeswax sales out of US$ 14,000 targeted, 
which is an achievement of 98%. On fish farming, the project beneficiaries accrued US$ 
200 out of US$ 200 targeted, an achievement of 100%.
For Moringa (Moringa oliefera) and sunflower as alternative cash crops to tobacco,
project beneficiaries accrued US$ 917 out of US$ 300 targeted from the Moringa sales 
and US$ 5,973 out of US$ 6,000 targeted from Sunflower sales making an achievement 
of 306% for Moringa and 100% for sunflower. However, in spite of the recorded
achievement of 306% for revenue accrued from Moringa, discussions with some
communities that are growing Moringa and field observations did not provide
encouraging success stories about Moringa. Some of the trees especially in Sikonge
district had poor growth performance and also they were attacked by some insects.
Market for Moringa was also reported to be poor by the majority of farmers contacted.
During the period under review, the project was able to engage 2,144 women in income 
generating activities out of the 2,200 targeted. This represents 97% achievement. Ugalla 
Community Conservation Project was able to sell 27 out of the 100 ram presses targeted 
making an achievement of 27%. Project reports showed that during the period under
review its beneficiaries were able to produce 4,183 liters of sunflower oil out of 4,737
litres targeted making an achievement of 88%. The evaluation team noted that there was 
no savings scheme initiated during the period under review and also noted with concern
that there was no target set for this activity.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 20 of 66
TABLE 6 INCOME LEVELS INCREASED FOR RURAL WOMEN
5 yrs target Achievements Achieve
Initial project objectives and current Main indicators/outputs Units May 1998 to 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Total Percent
USAID IR Sep-03 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02
Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Sep-03
Amount of income from new activities
Objective No. 4 *Honey US$ 21000 0 0 0 20295 23 20318 97
Income levels increased *Beeswax US$ 14000 0 0 0 8531 5203 13734 98
for rural women and men *Fish farming US$ 200 0 0 0 0 200 200 100
using environmentally *Moringa US$ 300 0 0 0 216 701 917 306
sound small enterprises *Sunflower US$ 6000 0 0 0 5673 300 5973 100
*Horticulture US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
USAID IR 2.4 *Poultry raising US$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Community Natural Resources Number of women groups and individual women
management functioning at target areas and men involved i n new income generating Women 2200 0 905 284 315 640 2144 97
activities
Number of ram press operations established in Ram press 100 0 9 0 9 9 27 27
zone: Quantity of oil produced
Quantity of palm oil produced using manual Litres 4737 0 0 2240 1943 0 4183 88
Caltech press
Amount of money put into saving schemes: Tsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
amount of credit and rate of repayment for new
rural enterprises
Source: Africare 1997, Africare 1998, Africare 1999, Africare 2000, Africare 2001 Africare 2002, Africare 2003a
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 21 of 66
3.3.5 Objective Five: Organizations and Institutions Strengthened for Sustainable 
Natural Resource Conservation
The objective is related to USAID IR 2.2: Increased Effectiveness of Institutions That
Support Natural Resources Conservation.
During the period under review, UCCP facilitated Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda districts 
to initiate functioning CBNRM support committees. Furthermore, 9 Village Governments
set into operation audit worth accounting systems and functioning land use management
plans out of the 39 targeted, making 23% achievement (Table 7). 
A key activity carried out with reference to Ugalla Game Reserve was the training of 35 
Game Scouts. These came from Ugalla Game Reserve (14), Zonal Anti-Poaching Unit, 
Tabora (11) and Zonal Anti-Poaching Unit, Manyoni (10) (Table 6). Similarly, an
elaborate project proposal entitled “Building a supportive Environment for Ugalla Game
Reserve” was prepared in May 2000. The proposal identified interventions to be done in
the core protected areas but it was not funded. UCCP has also prepared a scaled down 
version of BASE-UGR that will basically improve physical infrastructure and
communication system in Ugalla Game Reserve. The version has been approved for
funding as one of the post September 2003 UCCP extension activity.
Furthermore, in the project document it was indicated that unspecified number of Tabora 
Beekeeping Training Institute (TBTI) tutors would have been trained in PRA and
CBNRM methodologies. However, this activity was not done. It can be speculated that
this is due to the fact that the Institute moved its premises from Tabora to Arusha.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 22 of 66
TABLE 7 ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS STRENGTHENED FOR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND UTILISATION IN UCCP
5 yrs target Achievements Achieve
Initial project objectives and current Main indicators/outputs Units May 1998 to 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year Total Percent
USAID IR Sep-03 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02
Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Sep-03
Number of districts with functioning CBNRM Districts 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 100
Objective No. 5 support committees managed by District officials
Organizations and institutions Number of villages Govt. with audit worthy Villages 39 0 0 0 0 9 9 23
strengthened for sustainable natural accounting systems and functioning land use
resources management and utilisation management plans
Increased organizational skills of Ugalla GR project Incidences 35 0 0 6 8 10 24 69
management personnel in village relations as
USAID IR 2.2 measured by changing the number of negative 
Increased effectiveness of institutions incidences reported between the reserve personnel
that support natural resources and local resource users
Number of TBTI tutors trained in PRA and CBNRM Tutors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
methodology
Source: Africare 1997, Africare 1998, Africare 1999, Africare 2000, Africare 2001 Africare 2002, Africare 2003a
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 23 of 66
3.4 UCCP’s Efficiency, Effectiveness, Relevance and Sustainability
3.4.1 Project Efficiency
Project Efficiency is the measure of the outputs of the project, qualitative or quantitative 
in relation to the total resource inputs. In other words, it is a measure on how
economically the various inputs of the project are converted into outputs. Going through
the project reports and discussions held with functional officers in UCCP the evaluation
team failed to clearly identify cost centers as related to activities which made it difficult if
not impossible to assess the project efficiency. Monitoring project efficiency should be
strengthened by UCCP. Observations from other Community Based Natural Resources
Management projects in Tanzania have revealed similar weakness in monitoring project
efficiency. For example Mid Term Evaluation report of Misitu Yetu Project in Coast
Region funded by Care –Tanzania indicated that “Misitu Yetu project progress reports 
are silent on costs and no reference is made to effective use of resources with respect to 
outputs attained hence difficult to evaluate the efficiency of the project by comparing 
inputs against outputs (Kaale et.al, 2002).
3.4.2 Project Effectiveness
Project Effectiveness is the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved or 
can be expected to be achieved. Assessing effectiveness presupposes that the project
objectives have been unambiguously and operationally defined with clear and appropriate 
outputs/indicators so as to make verification possible. 
Going by the above definition, the evaluation team is of the opinion that the UCCP
recorded positive effectiveness. However, some few ambiguities in defining project
targets were observed from the inception period of the project. Annual targets that could 
provide a progressive track of the project effectiveness were missing as a result most of
the planned activities were implemented in the fifth year (May 2002 to September 2003).
For example with respect to objective 2 - Responsible resource utilization practices
undertaken by resource users: there was a target of producing 1,100 improved firewood 
stoves of which 202 stoves were produced in the 3rd year with no production of improved 
stoves in the subsequent years. Also smoke free collection of honey was targeted at Kg
50,000 of which 45,000 kg were collected in the 2nd year, only 100 kg in the 3rd year and 
50 kg in the 4
th year with zero collection in the 5
th year (Table 4). Under normal
circumstances with continuous provision of extension services by the project one would
expect an incremental annual collection of smoke free honey.
With respect to beeswax production, in the 2nd year a total of 45,000 kg of honey were 
collected but no beeswax was processed that year. In the 3rd year a total of 100 kg of 
honey were collected and 7,109 kg of beeswax were processed. In the 4th year a total of 
50 kg of honey were collected but with nil beeswax processing. However in the 5th year, 
nil honey was collected, but a total of 4,333 kg of beeswax were processed. 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 24 of 66
Reported data on income received from sales of honey and beeswax (Table 5) showed
that in the 4
th year a total of US$ 20,295 were earned from sale of honey but reported 
honey production for that year was 50 kg (Table 4). A total of US$ 8,531 were earned 
from sale of beeswax in the 4th year but with zero production of beeswax reported in that 
year. Subsequently a total of US$ 23 were earned from sale of honey in the 5th year but 
with zero production according to table 2. Nonetheless, total of US$ 5,203 were earned 
from sale of beeswax in the 5th year with a reported production of 4,333 kg of beeswax 
that give good correlation between production and sales.
One would expect that production of honey and beeswax are related hence the data
provided on honey and beeswax production does not meet reasonable standards of
validity, reliability, timeliness, precision and integrity. For example table 5 shows that 
management of forest resources under community conservation was implemented in the
5
th year with remarkable successes attaining on average over 90% of the initial target
within the period of five years. However, UCCP reports indicate that encouragement of
communities to conserve their village forests started from year one of the project. In
general, remarkable UCCP field successes were reported by villagers and observed by the 
evaluation team. Nonetheless, it was noted that UCCP has a weakness of reporting its 
field successes and best field practices hence the need of improving the situation.
3.4.3 Project Relevance
This concerns whether the rationale behind a project is in keeping with priorities of the
local community and society in question. On the one hand is a matter of the direction of 
the project in relation to its purpose. On the other hand it means looking at the societal
changes that may have taken place while the project has been in operation, and asking to 
what degree this may alter the rationale for the project. Then among others, at certain
level it is a question of how well the project has succeeded in reaching the target groups 
and whether it is directed towards areas to which the involved parties have given high
priority.
Various reports and studies have confirmed that UCCP has great relevance to the target 
communities and in line with Tanzania Government priority areas of poverty reduction
and sustainable environmental conservation (Planning Commission 1999, VPO 2000,
VPO 1997). The UCCP project is also in line with the USAID development policy and in 
particular Strategic Objective Two (USAID 2002, Africare 2003b). 
Through UCCP awareness raising programs, the majority of villagers in the project area
are now aware about the importance of environmental conservation and wise use of
natural resources for poverty eradication. Villagers are now working in harmony and in
partnership with wildlife and forestry officials instead of regarding them as enemies that
were hindering villagers’ accessibility to natural resources.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 25 of 66
3.4.4 Project Sustainability
Project sustainability is an overall assessment of the extent to which the positive changes 
achieved as a result of the project can be expected to last after the project has been
terminated. In many cases this is a question of the relation between the necessary use of
local resources and how recipients view the project. Sustainability is the final test of
project success. 
In the context of UCCP, sustainability hinges on three aspects namely: the resource base, 
organizational/institutional aspects and livelihood. In terms of resource base, the Ugalla
Ecosystem has not suffered serious degradation hence it has the potential to contribute to 
local people livelihoods, provided that effective natural resource management is in place
(Kajuni and Kiwango, 2003).
The presence of producer associations in the Ugalla Ecosystems ensures sustainability of
the interventions advocated by UCCP (Jagga, 1999). Another factor which shows
sustainability character of the project is the presence of participatory land use plans
which will address land use conflicts (National Land Use Planning Commission, 1998).
The existence of spillovers, whereby project interventions crossed village project
boundaries such as the case of fish farming in Kaliua village (non project village) in
Urambo District is a strong sign of sustainability.
Similarly, the fact that women are now involved in traditionally exclusive men’s
economic activities such as beekeeping and fisheries ensures sustainability of the project 
interventions due to the fact that women are the majority of the farming communities in
the rural areas (Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs and Children,
2000).
UCCP management has involved District officials in planning and approval of UCCP
activities. Many of UCCP activities have been mainstreamed in district planning process,
which is a good indication of sustainability. However, the Evaluation team has noted
shortage of natural resources manpower at district level and that some of the planned
UCCP activities are implemented mainly by UCCP staff. It was also noted that UCCP
staff are more motivated in terms of resources and income as compared to district natural 
resources staff. However, district authorities should consider UCCP contributions as a
temporary support; as such they should not develop a dependency syndrome on UCCP
that could affect negatively the sustainability of some of the project interventions. To
avoid the dependency syndrome, the district authorities should progressively build their
manpower and financial capacity to take over activities that are currently supported by
UCCP to enhance sustainability. 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 26 of 66
3.5 Strategies used by UCCP in implementing different interventions and the 
way forward
The Ugalla Community Conservation project applied a number of strategies to attain its
objectives. The first and foremost intervention strategy was awareness creation through
training. The project also encouraged private manufacturers to produce resource
harnessing equipment e.g. ram presses and top-bar hives.
Similarly, the project used multi-disciplinary teams and villagers to develop participatory
land use plans in 9 villages. This is one of the interventions cherished by most of the local 
people and it should continue and cover all the villages in the project districts because it 
is likely to reduce land use conflicts abound the districts. Another notable intervention
was the introduction of cash crops mainly Sunflower, Palm oil trees and Moringa as
alternative cash crops to tobacco.
The project has facilitated institutional capacity building at village level through the
formation of village natural resource management committees and training of village
game scouts. The project has also improved equity through the use of gender and
environmentally friendly enterprises such as beekeeping and fish farming.
Table 8 gives summary of interventions, strategies, their impacts and the way forward.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 27 of 66
Table 8 Implementation Strategies used by UCCP
Intervention Strategy Impact The way forward
Awareness 
creation
Training of 
Trainers on PRA 
and CBNRM 
concepts
High To continue
Conducting 
baseline studies
Consultancy Medium Since only Socio-economic study 
was conducted, there is a need to 
conduct baseline studies on: 
Resource base and 
Institutional/Organizational 
aspects
Introduction and 
adoption of new 
technologies
Encourage private
manufacturers to
produce resource
harnessing 
equipment e.g. ram
presses and top bar 
hives.
Medium To continue
Participatory land
use plans
Use of multi –
disciplinary teams 
and villagers
High To continue
Establishment of
pWMAs
Participatory 
involvement of 
villagers and 
Wildlife Officials
Medium To continue
Reduction of 
poaching and 
other illegal 
resource uses
Establishment of 
Village Natural 
Resource 
Committees and 
training of village 
game scouts
High To continue
Use of gender and 
environmentally 
friendly small 
enterprises i.e. 
beekeeping
Medium To continue
Introduction of 
alternative cash 
crops
Low Research to be conducted on the
introduced alternative cash crops
particularly on Moringa
Improving 
community 
livelihood
Introduction of fish 
farming
High To continue
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 28 of 66
Table 8 continues
Intervention Strategy Impact The way forward
Initiate district 
CBNRM support 
committees
High To continue
Encourage village 
Governments to 
have audit worth 
accounting systems
Low UCCP to assign the responsibility 
to another service provider 
preferably The Moshi Co￾operative College
Organizational 
and institutional 
strengthening for 
sustainable natural 
resources 
management and 
utilization
Training of Ugalla 
Game Reserve 
personnel in 
village relations
Low To be intensified
3.6 Constraints encountered and suggested solutions
Table 9 shows constraints encountered during project implementation and some
suggested solutions.
Table 9 Constraints encountered and suggested solutions
Identified constraints Suggested solutions
Poor infrastructure development in the project
area
The project to continue
supplementing Government
efforts in improving the
infrastructure e.g. the
provision of communication
system in strategic areas
such as in Ugalla Game
Reserve
The reluctance of Natural Resource Managers to
let their “power go” to local communities
Sensitization of Natural 
Resource Managers on 
paradigm shift, which calls 
for community 
empowerment.
Conflicts of interests between key stakeholders Frequent consultations
Limited resources in terms of personnel and funds · Conduct manpower
auditing so as to
establish appropriate
manning levels.
· Seek for more funds
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 29 of 66
Table 9 continues
Identified constraints Suggested solutions
Low level of understanding about contemporary
policies and legal instruments related to poverty
eradication and natural resources management
Training and dissemination 
of policies and legal 
instruments
Lack of research underlying introduction of
alternative cash crops
Collaborate with research 
organizations e.g. Tumbi 
Research Institute, ICRAF, 
TAFORI.
State of insecurity faced by village game scouts Their roles should be 
clearly stipulated in 
appropriate legal 
instruments
Lack of motivation to village game scouts Explore financial based 
incentives to village game 
scouts e.g. use of retention 
funds accrued from tourist 
hunting.
Lack of baseline data on resource base and
institutional/organizational aspects
Carry out baseline studies 
on resource base and 
institutional/organizational 
aspects
Inadequate stakeholders analysis Take into consideration the 
pastoralists from 
neighboring regions and 
refugees influx at planning 
and implementation levels.
Inadequate monitoring and data management at
different levels (i.e. the project lacked a well
organized institutional memory in terms of
documentation)
· Design simple 
monitoring and data 
base management 
system.
· Undertake training at 
different levels on data 
acquisition and 
management
3.7 Collaboration Between Partners in the Ugalla Ecosystem
GREEN-COM program on sensitization and awareness creation on environmental
education through Community Environmental Award Scheme (CEAS) should be
applauded. The scheme operates through other partners including Africare and district
councils. CEAS has formed district CEAS committees and environmental teams and each
district has environmental action plan. The environmental award scheme is providing
motivation to villagers to actively engage in conservation of natural resources through
participatory efforts and local initiatives.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 30 of 66
SUA-TU, which is another partner to UCCP, has been funded under SO9 to improve
packaging and marketing of beekeeping products in the project area. SUA-TU is
mandated to undertake small and medium enterprise development with conservation of
biodiversity through improved agriculture and natural resource management in Tanzania.
Through SUA-TU efforts, honey producers have managed to get higher prices through
improved packaging and marketing. Progressive expansion of SUA-TU coverage in the
project area will improve beekeepers income levels and contribute to poverty eradication.
Wildlife Division is one of the key stakeholders to the UCCP, and signatory to the
Memorandum of Understanding and the legal owner of the Ugalla Game reserve and
wildlife resources available in the project area. Observations and discussions with
Wildlife Division officials from district to national level confirmed their committed 
support to UCCP conservation efforts and in particular the ongoing establishment of pilot 
Wildlife Management Areas and expansion of UCCP activities to Ugalla Game Reserve.
3.8 Performance and Effectiveness of different UCCP’s Management Regime
Working Groups
Since its inception in 1998, UCCP has worked with three management regime working
groups namely: Community Based Conservation (CBC), Game reserve management and
Ugalla Ecosystem. At field level the project has worked with a Project Management
Team, comprising of UCCP Coordinator, Ugalla Game Reserve Manager and Western
Zonal Anti-poaching Commander. The project has a Steering Committee involving all
major key stakeholders including 4 members of parliament, District Executive Directors
and District Council Chair persons for Sikonge, Urambo and Mpanda. Other members of 
the steering committee include USAID Core Team Representative, WD, FBD, UGR
Manager, Africare, RAS for Tabora and Rukwa. UCCP has also been represented in the 
Strategic Objective Team involving other SO2 funded projects. At the policy level a an
Oversite Steering Committee Meeting involving Permanent Secretaries of implementing
ministries (MNRT, MOF, VPs office, Local Governments and selected Regional
Secretaries) oversee implementation of SO2. 
The evaluation team is of the opinion that these different management regimes provide
adequate support and are necessary to ensure that UCCP attains its objectives and makes 
appropriate contribution to SO2. Involvement of stakeholders at the field level is essential 
to ensure mainstreaming of UCCP activities at district and village levels and does
guarantee sustainability of UCCP interventions. 
The only relevant activity undertaken under the Game Reserve Regime was training of 35 
Game Scouts. An unsolicited proposal for Building a Supportive Environment for Ugalla
Game Reserve was prepared in May 2000 and submitted to USAID, unfortunately it was 
not funded (Africare 2000b). However, a scaled down component of the proposal under 
the name of BASE-URG PHASE 1 has been submitted to USAID and funded under the 
proposal for Extension of Ugalla Community Conservation Project for the period October 
2003 to September 2005 (Africare 2003c).
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 31 of 66
In the opinion of the evaluation team, the planning process undertaken by UCCP was
participatory and adequate. A Performance Monitoring Plan prepared after the Mid Term
Evaluation conducted in 2000 to address some shortcomings has relatively improved the
situation.
Over the years the reporting system has evolved in terms of format and quality adhering
to USAID reporting guidelines. With regard to financial management, UCCP adheres to
Africare Financial Management Procedures. 
3.9 Beneficiaries’ satisfaction, consensus and the way forward
A two days Participatory Workshop to assess beneficiaries’ satisfaction, consensus and
the way forward was conducted in Tabora as from 14th to 15th November 2003. UCCP 
officials presented a detailed report of their field achievements from May 1998 to
September 2003 and some highlights on the proposal for extension from October 2003 to 
September 2005. This was followed by presentation of preliminary findings by the
evaluation team along with some key lessons learned.
Discussions and group presentations from the participants clearly indicated that they were 
satisfied with the reported UCCP achievements and agreed with the key findings and
lessons as presented by the evaluation team (See section 4 on lessons learned). With
regard to the way forward, the participants generally agreed with the proposal for
extension. They specifically suggested that participatory land use planning should be
given more emphasis as a “hub” of the project.
3.10 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
The SWOT analysis for UCCP was one of the agenda for the two days participatory
workshop conducted in Tabora as from 14th to 15th November 2003. Table 10 summaries 
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as perceived by the workshop
participants (beneficiaries).
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 32 of 66
Table 10 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in UCCP
Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat
Communities in UCCP 
are aware and 
supportive to the 
conservation efforts
Limited resources in terms 
of personnel and funds to 
cover the entire potential 
project area
Existing of supportive 
policies and legal 
instruments on natural 
resource management
Poverty
Abundant and 
diversified natural 
resource base
Poor infrastructure Community 
willingness to 
participate in the 
project
High level of 
illiteracy in the 
project area 
Existence of strong 
natural resource 
management 
institutional structures 
at different levels
Low level of 
understanding of new 
policies and legal 
instruments related to 
natural resources 
management and poverty 
alleviation
Political will on
sustainable natural
resource management
and poverty alleviation
Refugees influx 
in the project area
Conflict of interests 
among natural resource 
managers and practitioners
Donor support on
management of natural
resources
Influx of 
pastoralists from 
neighboring 
regions (i.e. 
Shinyanga and 
Mwanza)
The dilemma of let the 
“power go”
Drought
Loose institutional linkage 
between local 
governments and UCCP
Tobacco 
cultivation which
causes 
deforestation
Lack of detailed research 
on introduced alternative 
cash crops.
Donor 
dependence
Lack of baseline data on 
natural resource base and 
institutional/organizational 
aspects
Insecurity facing
Village Game
Scouts.
Inadequate motivation to 
village game scouts
Unreliable 
markets
Inadequate stakeholders’ 
analysis
Inadequate monitoring of 
project activities
Power struggles amongst 
the project management 
team members
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 33 of 66
4. LESSONS LEARNED
4.1 The importance of institutional capacity building in community based
natural resources management (CBRM)
Institutional capacity building is an essential step in the struggle to develop a more
effective and sustainable foundation for community based natural resources management. 
It is a testament to this effort in UCCP that two out of the 16 pilot Wildlife Management 
Areas (pWMAs) namely Ipole in Sikonge District and Uyumbu in Urambo District are
located in the project area.
4.2 The existence of illegal resource users in Ugalla Ecosystem
Despite the efforts of Africare and its partners to date, the Ugalla Ecosystem still
experiences considerable pressure from illegal resource users specifically the refugees
and pastoralists who were given inadequate attention during the formulation of the
project.
4.3 State of insecurity facing Village Game Scouts
Besides the fact that village game Scouts have significantly reduced illegal resource use,
they have not been accorded due consideration with respect to legal security while on
duty consequently some of them have resigned due to state of insecurity they are facing. 
4.4 Lack of motivation to village Game Scouts
Compensation and management of Village Game Scouts need to be taken over by the
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and be compensated by using funds from
hunting concessions and other village based sources of income. In spite of hard and risky 
work, village game scouts have no defined financial support while on duty.
4.5 Adoption of improved technologies versus household economies
The evaluation team observed that top bar hives are more productive than bark and log
hives, but they are expensive. The adoption of top-bar hives depends very much on the 
status of household economy. Communities in Ugalla Ecosystem are relatively poor and
hence to increase the adoption rate of top bar hives and other improved technologies,
affordable methods of cost sharing should be introduced.
4.6 The need for crop research
Before introducing alternative cash crops to tobacco it could be better if thorough
research could have been carried out with respect to soil requirements, pests, growth
performance and yield that could have reduced the level of uncertainties currently being
experienced by most farmers cultivating Moringa. Sunflower, which was introduced in
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 34 of 66
the project area, is widely cultivated in other regions of Tanzania with similar ecological
conditions to those of Tabora namely: Dodoma, Singida, Rukwa, Iringa and Shinyanga.
Palm oil trees, which were also introduced, are widely cultivated in Kigoma region
(Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 2001, Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives 1997).
4.7 Women empowerment versus traditional norms
In the Ugalla Ecosystem, traditionally women were not involved in some revenue
generation activities such as beekeeping and fishing. This resulted into great gender
inequality in income. Women empowerment through training by UCCP has broken these 
traditional and cultural barriers and women are now increasingly involved in these male
exclusive activities and have gained economic power.
4.8 The importance of clearly defined property rights
Sorting out land tenure issues and defining property rights through mapping and
boundary demarcations are key factors of reducing/avoiding resource use conflicts. 
4.9 The importance of social capital in sustaining Community Based Natural
Resources Management Initiatives
Understandably that natural resource managers (Foresters and Game Officers) have been
in confrontation with surrounding local communities for a long time but, building
sustainable Community Based Natural Resource initiatives call for the creation of social
capital whereby Natural Resource Managers should see local communities as equal and
necessary partners.
The UCCP has clearly demonstrated that over the past five years it has build a very
strong “social capital” and local people testified that natural resource managers in Ugalla 
Ecosystem are now their trust worth partners.
4.10 The dilemma of let the “power go”
Tanzania has a history of State dominance over decision making dating back to
colonialism and socialism eras. The notion of involving local communities in the
management of local resources has found its way in most policies and legislations in
Tanzania, but still has yet to be fully institutionalized at the district level and downwards.
Natural resource managers are reluctant to let the “power go”. Cases of some natural
resource managers being in conflict with local communities abound the Ugalla
Ecosystem. For instance, boundary conflicts between UGR and surrounding communities
in Sikonge District with respect to location of beehives.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 35 of 66
4.11 Project spill-overs
Successful project interventions at the local level have crossed the project boundaries.
For example in Urambo district one farmer in non project village (Kaliua) has adopted 
and constructed a relatively large fish pond based on his visit to project villages in
Sikonge District.
Similarly, in the same district a youth group namely KIKUMUMI has established a tree
nursery, which renders services to school and farmers primary cooperative societies in
Urambo District with annual average seedlings production of around 50,000. These self￾help groups and volunteer initiatives should be actively harnessed.
4.12 Impact of role models
Some of the key leaders in Tabora region have shown commitment to UCCP initiatives
by implementing some of the advocated interventions.
The Chairman of UCCP Steering Committee, Member of Parliament for Urambo West
and Minister for Labour, Youth and Culture, Honorable Alhaj Professor Juma A. Kapuya 
is a point case. He has planted over 80 ha of palm oil trees, which are serving as a 
demonstration for the farmers.
4.13 Victimization of seemingly committed actors
Committed members of some Village Natural Resources Committees and Village Game
Scouts in UCCP villages seemed to be victimized due to the fact that they had been
readdressing some corrupt tendencies of some political leaders particularly in Urambo
district. 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 36 of 66
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The Ugalla Community Conservation Project is now well known both in the project and 
non-project villages and has positively influenced local communities’ resource use
practices to a large extent.
The project has also succeeded in gender mainstreaming as evidenced by the fact that
women are now engaged in traditionally men’s exclusive activities such as beekeeping.
There is also evidence of increased adoption of environmental friendly technologies in
beekeeping, fisheries and agriculture. In fact, there has been a drastic change from fish
catching to fish farming to say the least.
The emergence of producer associations in the Ugalla Ecosystem is a new “locus” of
power. This provides the local communities with authority, through their elected
executives or boards, to make rules, to approve development plans, to enter into
partnership with the private sector, and to receive and distribute benefits.
It is also worth noting that UCCP has acted as a mediator or “power broker” between the 
communities and some state organs helping to level the “playing ground” and ensuring
true community participation. Ugalla Community Conservation Project has been
instrumental in driving the agenda towards greater local level control of natural resources 
in Sikonge, Urambo and Mpanda districts.
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 The need for alternative cash crops
Besides the fact that some of the introduced alternative cash crops such has Moringa 
oliefera has not performed to the expectations, the project should continue to work
towards providing farmers with alternative cash crops such as sunflower and palm oil
trees. Although these crops are not as lucrative as tobacco per hectare basis, they have 
advantages that they require less capital and labor. These crops are also likely to slow the 
expansion of tobacco production and thereby reducing the fuelwood needed for tobacco 
curing and hence conserving forest resources.
5.2.2 The Importance of Baseline Data
Although there are estimates on wildlife and other resources, there are no concrete data 
on for example wildlife habitats and movements within or outside the Ugalla Game
Reserve. These types of data are essential for the functioning of the pilot Wildlife
Management Areas in Uyumbu and Ipole. Therefore, it is recommended that baseline
studies be carried out.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 37 of 66
5.2.3 Synergies between Sunflower and Beekeeping
The combination of sunflower growing and beekeeping in the Ugalla Ecosystem has the
potential of improving the quality and quantity of sunflower seeds due to effective
pollination by honeybees and on the other hand enhancing production of honey and
beeswax. These types of synergies should be popularized among the local communities
through documentation in the form of success stories by the project.
5.2.4 The importance of taking into consideration the needs of different 
stakeholders
Unlike what has happened in the last five years in Ugalla Ecosystem whereby pastoralists 
and refugees were not included in the conservation equation, the needs and concerns of
the diverse stakeholders i.e. those who use the land and its resources need to be
considered if resource conflicts are to be reduced if not to be completely avoided.
5.2.5 Village Natural Resource Management Committees to remain
accountable to the local communities
The village natural resource management committees (VNRMC) in Ugalla Ecosystem
appeared in the eyes of the evaluation team to be relatively successful as CBNRM
institutions, provided that they do not become “elitists” but remain accountable to the
local communities. Mechanism to ensure this need to be put in place by developing clear 
working terms of reference for VNRMC with periodic training to improve their skills on
natural resources management.
Furthermore, the greater the authority and power such committees receive and the more
the state is willing “to let it go” the more likely are to succeed. 
5.2.6 The Importance of Social learning process in CBNRM
Building of CBNRM institutions that are representative of the different interests among
the local actors and sensitive to the dynamics of power relations in the communities is an
intensive and time consuming process. It calls for involving all actors, regardless of their 
socio-economic backgrounds in a negotiation process.
Differences and conflicts of interest need to be resolved amicably through collective
stakes and should be strengthened through a “social learning process”. It should be
emphasized that any attempt to speed up implementation and ignore the social learning
process will condemn the CBNRM initiatives to failure in the long run. 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 38 of 66
5.2.7 Africare as a “Power Broker” between the private sector and local 
communities
The private sector in the Ugalla ecosystem is key to income generation and the case in
point is the “Gold Apis Company” which is an essential and necessary partner. However, 
there are many examples where communities have benefited little from private sector
involvements. For instance in Zambia, tourism partnerships have provided little more
than an opportunity for employment for a very small number of community members
(Sheona et al., 2001). 
It is recommended that to avoid such a situation to occur in the Ugalla Ecosystem, 
Africare through UCCP should serve as a “Power Broker”. The private sector is a
powerful actor with a high degree of self interest and considerable knowledge of hunting
tourism, an activity to be practiced in Uyumbu and Ipole pilot Wildlife Management
Areas. This puts the would be Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in Uyumbu and 
Ipole at a distinct disadvantage and in this case, a third party broker (Africare/UCCP) is 
needed to ensure fair and equitable arrangements.
5.2.8 The need to integrate Traditional Institutions in the Management of 
the Ugalla Ecosystem
Despite the weakening of traditional institutions in Tanzania, some studies conducted in
the country (Kajembe et. al., 2000 and Kajembe et. al., 2003) have indicated that neither 
past colonial policies nor post- independent government policies which have favored
democratically elected local government structures have managed to destroy the
institution of traditional leadership and its legitimacy completely.
Consequently traditional institutions remain important politically and administratively
and should not be ignored or underestimated in the management of the Ugalla Ecosystem. 
Efforts should also be made to collect, document and utilize existing indigenous
knowledge on natural resources management within the project area. Combination of
indigenous and modern knowledge in natural resources management has provided
positive impacts to poverty eradication and environmental conservation in HASHI
project, Shinyanga region (Kilahama 1994).
5.2.9 The need for flexible approaches
Community Based Natural Resources Management approaches in the Ugalla Ecosystem
must be flexible and adapted to fit local contexts, complexities and needs.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 39 of 66
5.2.10 The need to review the UCCP Memorandum of Understanding
The introduction of the Ugalla Ecosystem Working Group (UEWG) (Africare, 2003d)
and the inclusion of Uyui district in the project call for the review of the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MoU). It should clearly state the functional relationship between UEWG
and the Project Management Team (PMT), the Steering Committee and Strategic
Objective Team (SOT). It should also legally bind the Uyui District Council.
5.2.11 Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation System
The contemporary seemingly constraints associated with data acquisition and
management could be solved by strengthening monitoring and evaluation system for
UCCP through among other things, employing a Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
whose main duties should include developing a data management system and capacity
building on data acquisition and management at all levels.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 40 of 66
REFERENCES 
Africare 2003a. Report for July-December, 2002. CBC Management Working Group – Semi 
Annual Report. UCCP Tabora.
Africare. 2003b. Ugalla Ecosystem Management Regime Working Group Meeting Minutes. 
UCCP – Tabora.
Africare. 2003c. Proposal for Extension of Ugalla Community Conservation Project (UCCP) 
October 2003 to September 2005. Africare Tanzania.
Africare. 2003d Ugalla Ecosystem Working Group Report. November 2002 to October 2003. 
Africare/Tanzania.
Africare. 2002a.Ugalla Community Conservation Project. Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Africare 
Tanzania.
Africare. 2002b. Strategic Objective Results Framework. Africare Tanzania
Africare 2002c. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. January – December, 2002 Progress 
Report. Submitted to Africare Resident Representative. UCCP Tabora.
Africare 2001. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. January – December, 2001 Progress 
Report. Submitted to Africare Resident Representative. UCCP Tabora.
Africare 2000a. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. January – December, 2000 Progress 
Report. Submitted to Africare Resident Representative. UCCP Tabora.
Africare. 2000b. Building a Supportive Environment for the Ugalla Game Reserve Western 
Tanzania. Africare-Tanzania.
Africare 1999. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. January – December, 1999 Progress 
Report. Submitted to Africare Resident Representative. UCCP Tabora.
Africare 1998. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. January – December, 1998 Progress 
Report. Submitted to Africare Resident Representative. UCCP Tabora.
Africare. 1997. Ugalla Community Conservation Project. An unsolicited proposal to 
USAID/Tanzania. Africare Tanzania.
Ainsline, A. 1999. When “community” is not enough: Managing common property natural
resources in rural South Africa. Development Southern Africa 16: 375-401.
FAO, 1985. Tree growing by rural people. FAO Forestry Paper No, 90. FAO, Rome.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 41 of 66
FBD. 2002. The Forest Act 2002. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers Dar es
Salaam.
Jagga-D. E.S. 1999. Report on the Agricultural Reconnaissance for the Development of 
Community Based Agricultural Projects in Urambo, Mpanda and Sikonge Districts. 
(Findings and Recommendations: Final Version). Africare Tanzania.
Jodha, N. and Bhatia, A. 1998. Community Management of Commons: Re-Empowerment 
Process and the Gaps. Paper presented at the 1998 IASCP conference.
Http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/iascp98.htm.
Kaale B.K., Mwakifwamba S. and Ennals Alice. 2002. Misitu Yetu Project. Mid Term 
Evaluation Report. CARE-Tanzania.
Kaale B. K. 1999. Natural Resources Socio-Economic Baseline Data for Ugalla Community 
Conservation Project, Tabora. Africare, Tanzania.
Kajembe, G.C. 1994. Indigenous Management Systems as a Basis for Community Forestry in
Tanzania: A Case Study of Dodoma Urban and Lushoto Districts. Tropical Resource
Management Paper No. 6 Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
Kajembe G.C. and Kessy J.F. 1999. The Evaluation of Forestry Extension Services in Mwanza 
and Tabora Regions, Tanzania. Consultancy Report, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Dar es Salaam.
Kajembe, G.C.; S.F. Kimasa; G.C. Monela and E. Zahabu (2000). The Role of Local Institutions 
in the Management of Forest Resources in Tanzania: A Case Study of Kahama District. 
Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation, 73: 9-16.
Kajembe, G.C., Madoffe, S.S., Kessy, J.F., Munishi, P.T.K., Tarimo, M. and Nzunda, E. 2003. 
Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: District Baseline Studies. Forestry and
Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es
Salaam/Forconsult, Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Kajuni A.R and Nasser S. 2003. Report on Data Quality Assessment. Field Trip to UCCP –
Tabora. USAID/Tanzania Environment Program.
Kajuni A.R. and Kiwango W. 2003. A Report of SOT Visit to Ugalla Game Reserve. 20-23 
August 2003. USAID/Tanzania Environment Program.
Kilahama F.B. 1994. Trees and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge about Agro-Forestry Practices 
in the Rangelands of Shinyanga region, Tanzania. University of Wales Bangor.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 42 of 66
Melamari L. Maduhu N.F. and Isinika A. 2003a. Baseline Study in the Uyumbu Pilot WMA in
Urambo District. Volume 3: Uyumbu. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism￾Wildlife Division.
Melamari L. Maduhu N.F. and Isinika A. 2003b. Baseline Study in the Ipole Pilot WMA in
Sikonge District. Volume 4: Ipole. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism- Wildlife 
Division.
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 2001. District Integrated Agricultural Survey 1998/99
– Survey Results. National Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives P.O Box
9192 Dar es Salaam.
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 1997. Agriculture and Livestock Policy 1997.
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Dar es Salaam.
Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs and Children. 2000. National Policy on
Women Development and Gender. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers
Dar es Salaam.
MLHSD. 1999a. The Land Act, 1999. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers Dar es 
Salaam.
MLHSD. 1999b. The Village Land Act, 1999. United Republic of Tanzania. Government
Printers Dar es Salaam.
MNRT. 1998a. National Forest Policy. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers Dar 
es Salaam.
MNRT. 1998b. The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania. United Republic of Tanzania. Government
Printers Dar es Salaam.
MNRT. 1998c The National Beekeeping Policy. United Republic of Tanzania. Government
Printers Dar es Salaam.
MNRT. 2001. Community- Based Forest Management Guidelines. Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism Dar es Salaam.
National Land Use Planning Commission. 1998. Guidelines for Participatory Village Land Use 
Management in Tanzania. Ministry of Land and Urban Development.
Planning Commission. 1999. The Tanzania Development Vision 2025. President’s Office
Planning Commission – Dar es Salaam.
Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway. 1993. Evaluation of Development Assistance.
Handbook for Evaluators and Managers. NORAD.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 43 of 66
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Cocks, M., Kajembe, G.C., Kapungwe, E., Kayambanzithu, D.,
Jones, B., Matela, S., Monela, G.C., Mosimane, A., Nemarundwe, N., Ntale, N.,
Rozemeijer, N., Stenkamp, C., Sithule, B., Urth, J. and Van der Jagt, C., 2001.
Devolution in Natural Resource Management: Institutional Arrangements and Power
Shifts: A synthesis of Case Studies from Southern Africa USAID SADC NRM Project 
No. 690-0251.12 through WWF-SARPO, EU’s “Action in Favour of Tropical Forests”
through CIFOR and the common property STEP Project, CSIR.
USAID. 2002. Assessment of CBNRM Best Practices in Tanzania. USAID/Africa Bureau-Office 
of Sustainable Development.
VPO. 1997. National Environment Policy. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers
Dar es Salaam.
VPO. 2000. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). United Republic of Tanzania.
Government Printers Dar es Salaam.
Wildlife Division. 2002. Guidelines for Designation and Management of Wildlife Management 
Areas. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 44 of 66
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EVALUATION OF UGALLA
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PROJECT
1.0 Introduction 
Africare signed a memorandum of understanding with USAID/Tanzania Mission in January 1998 
to implement a project entitled “Ugalla Community Conservation Project”. The donor provided a 
grant of $ 2,197,087 to meet costs for implementing the project from May1998 to April 2003. 
During January 2003, USAID/Tanzania Mission approved an extension of the project from May 
to September 2003 by providing an additional $ 258,013. 
During January 2003, the Government of Tanzania launched the Wildlife Management Areas 
regulations formed under the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974. The regulations provide a legal 
framework for community participation in management of wildlife resources in 16 pilot wildlife 
management areas in Tanzania, two of which (Uyumbu and Ipole pWMAs) are within UCCP 
target areas. Africare has submitted a proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003 
and has requested USAID/Tanzania Mission to provide a grant of $ 1,450,000. The funds will in 
part be used to assist communities sharing Ipole and Uyumbu Pilot Wildlife Management Areas 
to carry out community based conservation activities that will make the two pilot WMAs
operational. The funds will also be used to carry out selected Community Based conservation 
activities, which will improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem.
Africare has also requested USAID/Tanzania Mission to provide a grant of $ 175,000 to improve 
infrastructure and communication in Ugalla Game Reserve as a core protected area, which is 
expected to sustain viable population of wildlife for Uyumbu and Ipole pilot WMAs. The 
Department of Interior of the US Government is also committed to provide a grant of $ 50,000 to 
develop a Radio Communication System for Ugalla Game Reserve, which will improve law 
enforcement and enhance conservation of Ugalla Game Reserve.
According to UCCP work plan for May-September 2003, Africare made a commitment to carry 
out an evaluation of UCCP to look at what was planned to be done in 1998, what has been done 
to date and what needs to be done to improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem and to actively 
engage communities in managing natural resources in Ugalla Ecosystem to derive maximum
benefits that will contribute to poverty reduction. This evaluation is expected to provide future 
guidance to UCCP in the light of anticipated changes in project implementation. The evaluation is 
expected to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats and Opportunities that may be used as a 
guide for developing strategies for implementing future CBNRM activities in Ugalla Ecosystem. 
2 Background
Ugalla Community Conservation Project was initiated with an aim of developing a foundation 
for community participation in management and wise use of natural resources in Ugalla 
Ecosystem. The project was initiated to address a number of problems in Ugalla related to 
resource use, environment, poverty and institutional issues. A problem analysis which was
conducted in 1998 identified the following key problems faced in Ugalla: 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 45 of 66
Resource use issues
· Over fishing by fish poachers through use of illegal beach seine nets that trap small fish
· Collateral damage to the environment resulting from indiscriminate cutting of trees for fish 
smoking, construction of canoes and debarking of trees to make beehives
· Forest fires caused by beekeepers and game hunters which hinder natural regeneration
· Illegal poaching of game
· Inadequate control of resource users due to limited number of game scouts needed to patrol 
the vast area of the Ecosystem
Environmental issues 
· High degree of control through creation of many gazzetted lands (Forest Reserves and Game 
Controlled areas).
· Encroachments into gazzetted areas
· Tree cutting for charcoal making
· Excessive and uncontrolled timber harvesting which results in loss of revenues to
Government
· Increase in tobacco cultivation that causes deforestation through clearing of forests for new 
crop and through clearing trees to cure tobacco.
· Local peoples perception that there are limited options for other cash crops
Problems of local population in use of Ugalla Ecosystem’s natural resources
· Acute shortage of transport and markets for fish and beekeeping products, which makes 
genuine resource users depend on middlemen that reap the benefits leaving the local
communities in abject poverty.
· Lack of secure land tenure 
· Communities do not benefit directly from tourist hunting
· Lack of awareness among the communities on the need for conservation of the ecosystem for 
sustainable development 
Institutional constraints to improved conservation practices
· Lack of support service to local communities to address their problems both at district and 
village level
· Limited awareness and understanding among local and village government authorities on
Community Based Natural Resources Conservation and participatory methodologies such as 
PRA 
· Local authorities lack skills in NRM and conservation that are necessary to support
communities in Ugalla
Other problems:
· Lack of capacity to monitor resource use
· Poor infrastructure
· Lack of policies and legislative environment for CBNRM
· Influx of refugees in Ugalla ecosystem that has resulted in indiscriminate use of resources.
3.0 UCCP’s goal and specific objectives
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 46 of 66
Ugalla Community Based Conservation Project was initiated with the following main goal:
“Foundational created for sustainable community based conservation and natural resource 
management around Ugalla Game Reserve”.
The project had the following specific objectives:
· Awareness created and support secured for conservation and responsible use of 
resources in UGR, surrounding FRs and non-protected areas. This entailed changing 
attitudes and acceptance of joint responsibility by communities and Government officials 
working in Ugalla and adjoining districts.
· Responsible resource utilization practices undertaken by resource users. This entailed 
promotion of appropriate technologies and techniques that were environmentally friendly 
which were expected to lead to improved efficiency in resource use.
· Approaches tested and accepted for community management of natural resources. In this 
objective UCCP was supposed to assist communities, technical agencies and district 
governments to develop new systems of controlling natural resources that ensure 
equitable sharing of benefits resulting from their participation in conservation
· Income levels of rural women and men increased through the use of environmentally 
sound small enterprises. These enterprises were expected to provide tangible benefits to 
communities
· Organizations and institutions strengthened to enable them carry out sustainable natural 
resource conservation.
The project’s goal, objectives, Intermediate results and activities are linked to and directly
contribute to USAID/Tanzania strategic objective number 2 “Improved conservation of coastal 
resources and wildlife in target areas”.
4.0 Stakeholders and beneficiaries
UCCP has worked closely with communities, local NGOs, Community Based Organizations,
Ugalla Game Reserve Management, Forestry and Beekeeping staff, Fisheries, local governments 
in Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda districts, and other stakeholders to address natural resources 
management issues in Ugalla.
The project has worked closely with Wildlife Division, SUA-TU linkage Project and Green COM 
II to improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem. The project has also worked closely with other 
SO2 partners (see section 5) in a strategic objective team that has implemented various CBNRM 
activities that jointly contributed to attainment of AID/Tanzania’s strategic objective number 2. 
During the last five years UCCP has reached out more than 127,000 people in 42 villages in 
Urambo, Sikonge and Mpanda Districts as target beneficiaries.
5.0 Project Management
A Strategic Objective Team comprising of representatives from USAID Tanzania Mission,
Africare, SUA-TU Linkage Project, Green Com II, WD, WWF, AWF, TANAPA, NEMC, Vice 
Presidents Office, Ministry of Finance and PORALG oversees the implementation of UCCP and 
allocates resources for implementing UCCP activities. 
At the technical level UCCP has been represented in CBC Management Regime Working Group 
Meetings and Ugalla Game Reserve Management Regime Working Group Meeting until may 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 47 of 66
2003 when the 19th SOT meeting decided to re-organize activity working groups to Ecosystem 
Management Regime Working Groups.
At field level UCCP activities have been guided by a Steering Committee Meeting comprising of 
the following key stake holders: 4 members of Parliament from Sikonge, Urambo and Mpanda 
Districts, Representatives from USAID (1), WD (1), FBD (1), RAS from Rukwa and Tabora 
regions, District Executive Directors and District Council Chairpersons from Sionge, Mpanda and 
Urambo, 2 Ex-Officials (PC UGR and Manager UGR) and Africare Country Representative.
The Project has been overseen by a Management Team of three namely UCCP Coordinator, UGR 
Manager and Zonal Anti-poaching Unit Commander for Western Zone.
6.0 Mid-Term Evaluation of November 2002
A midterm evaluation of the project was undertaken in November 2002 to assess progress of 
UCCP against proposed objectives and results, to review strategy and make recommendations for 
project implementation for the remaining period. The Midterm Evaluation Mission made a
number observations and recommendations to improve project performance. These are outlined in 
the Midterm Evaluation Document.
7.0 Objectives for Final Evaluation of UCCP
It is necessary to carry out an evaluation of UCCP to look at historical perspectives namely what 
was planned to be done, what has been done and what needs to be done to improve conservation 
of Ugalla Ecosystem in the light of the new direction of the project. 
It is necessary to do SWOT analysis to determine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 
that need to be taken into consideration during implementation of a project proposal for extension 
of UCCP beyond September 2003. This evaluation will determine desired course and guide 
project implementation and provide information that will be useful in developing strategies for 
implementing the project beyond September 2003.
The evaluation team will carry out among other things the following specific tasks:
· Evaluate UCCP’s progress and its impact to Strategic Objective two (Improved
Conservation of Coastal Resources and Wildlife in Target Areas). 
· Evaluate UCCP’s objectives and results and find out whether these have indeed
contributed to SO2 results framework and identify gaps that need to be filled during 
implementation of “Proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003”
· Evaluate UCCP’s Efficiency and Effectiveness in addressing issues that were identified 
at the beginning of the project
· Evaluate UCCP’s sustainability strategy and identify gaps that should be addressed
during implementation of “Proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003”
· Evaluate strategies used by UCCP for implementing different interventions and come up 
with recommendations that will improve implementation of future community based
conservation activities in Ugalla Ecosystem
· Identify key project activities that should continue to be implemented along with other 
activities listed in the proposal for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003, which 
will improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 48 of 66
· Identify constraints that have been encountered in the implementation of the project and 
suggest ways to overcome these for the smooth implementation of future CBNRM
activities in Ugalla Ecosystem.
· Evaluate progress of collaborative activities undertaken jointly by UCCP, SUA-TU 
linkage Project, Green Com II, and WD and identify overlap to be avoided, gaps to be 
filled and synergies required to optimize use of resources to improve conservation of 
Ugalla Ecosystem and achieve SO2
· Evaluate performance and effectiveness of different UCCP’s Project Management regime 
working groups, the planning process, Performance Monitoring Plan, Reporting and
Financial Management, and identify gaps that need to be filled for efficient
implementation of Proposal for Extension of UCCP beyond September 2003.
· Assess beneficiaries satisfaction and develop consensus with all key stake holders on way 
forward
The evaluation should produce the following results
· Indicate major achievements and shortcomings of UCCP
· Indicate what the project was supposed to do, what the project has been able to do and 
what needs to be done in the future
· Indicate strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities that can be used for
streamlining future CBNRM activities in Ugalla Ecosystem
· Develop consensus with all stakeholders and strategies for implementing UCCP beyond 
September 2003.
· Show major ecological impact that has been achieved and what needs to be achieved in 
the future
· Clearly indicate synergies between SOT partners working in Ugalla Ecosystem that will 
optimize use of resources to improve conservation of Ugalla Ecosystem and insure that 
communities accrue maximum benefits from their participation in conservation of Ugalla 
Ecosystem
8.0 Methodology for Evaluation of UCCP
Evaluation of UCCP will be participatory and will involve all primary stakeholders. The
evaluation team will be required to study these terms of reference and develop a methodology and 
time schedule which will enable them to carry out a participatory evaluation of UCCP. 
The Evaluation Team will review, among others, the following key documents:
· USAID Tanzania Country Strategic Plan
· SO2 Team Charter
· SO2 Results Framework Document
· SO 2 Annual and Semi annual reports, 
· Minutes of SOT meetings
· SO2 Annual Retreat Reports
· Ugalla Community Conservation Project document
· Mid Term Evaluation document prepared in November 2002
· New Proposal for Extension of UCCP beyond September 2003
· Latest UCCP Performance Monitoring Plan
· Proposal for Building a supportive Environment for Ugalla Game Reserve
· Annual and Semiannual Progress reports for UCCP 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 49 of 66
· Management Regime Working Group Reports to which UCCP has ascribed
· Field Conservation Officers Activity progress reports
· UCCP contractual documents with USAID
The evaluation team will carry out fieldwork and will consult as many target beneficiaries as 
possible to capture beneficiaries thinking regarding project performance and their perceptions on 
project interventions.
At the end of field work, the evaluation team will conduct a Participatory Evaluation Workshop 
in Tabora involving a minimum of 50 key stakeholders to discuss among other things, findings of 
the evaluation mission, lessons and experiences learned during implementation of UCCP that can 
be used/avoided during implementation of future community based conservation activities in
Ugalla Ecosystem. The workshop will review and develop strategies for implementing proposal 
for extension of UCCP beyond September 2003 and chart the way forward.
9.0 Timing and reporting requirements
This evaluation will be undertaken during November 2003 for 21 effective working days. The 
evaluation team will review the attached time schedule and prepare a detailed work plan that will 
enable them to carry out this evaluation within the set time limit. The evaluation team will
prepare a report following standards recommended by USAID (refer to chapter 12 of USAID 
handbook or USAID’s Automated Directive Systems). The report should include: Executive 
Summary, Table of contents, Body of the report and appropriate appendices (TOR, List of people 
met, work plan and bibliography). The Team leader will be responsible for coordinating
preparation of the final Evaluation Document and will produce 6 hard copies and electronic 
copies for distribution to USAID, Africare, WD, SUA-TU, Green Com II, and WWF. 
The core evaluation team will do a debriefing in Dar-es-Salaam, which will involve the following 
partners: USAID/Tanzania, Africare, WWF, SUA-TU, Green COM II, WD, and FBD, at a venue 
to be decided by the partners.
10.0 Composition and Qualifications of evaluation team
Three National consultants will conduct this evaluation. The team leader must have a solid and 
strong background in Community Based Natural Resources Management issues, must have 
proven experience with PRA and must have been involved in evaluating Integrated Community 
Based Natural Resources Management programmes. The team leader should also have proven 
experience in Project management.
The second consultant should have a good background in Socio-economic issues related to
Community Based Conservation of Natural Resources. He/She must have a good background in 
sustainable livelihood issues and must have proven experience in evaluating other donor funded 
Community Based Conservation Programmes. 
The Third consultant should have a strong background in Wildlife Management and Community 
Based Natural Resources Management issues. The consultant should have experience on
institutional issues related to community based conservation and must have been involved in 
evaluating Donor funded community based conservation programmes.
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 50 of 66
The Director of Wildlife and Africare/Tanzania will provide staff to accompany the three
consultants to take note of issues that emerge in the field and to guide the consultants to do their 
work effectively.
11.0 Terms and conditions for the consultancy
The three Consultants will be paid consultancy fees for 21 effective working days each at a rate 
that will be negotiated between the employer and the three consultants. Besides consultancy fees 
all travel costs will be covered by the employer at rates that will be negotiated between the three 
consultants and employer. 
Africare will meet travel costs for WD and Africare staff, who will accompany the evaluation 
team. In addition Africare will provide a vehicle and driver to facilitate movement of the
evaluation team in the field. The employer will cover costs for these additional inputs. 
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 51 of 66
Table 1: Revised Tentative time schedule for Evaluation of UCCP
ACTIVITY DATE LOCATION
Review documents and do consultations with 
USAID, WWF, SOT CHAIRMAN, TCMP& WD 
and sort out travel logistics with Africare/Tanzania 
Country Office
Mon 3 Nov 2003 Dar
Travel to Tabora Tues 4 Nov, 2003 Tabora
Discussion with UCCP Management, Tabora 
Regional Authorities, SUA-TU, Ugalla Game 
Reserve Management and Uyui District Authorities. 
Review Project Documents
Tues 4 Nov, 2003 Tabora
Travel to Sikonge and do consultations with DC, 
DED, DCC & DNRO. 
Visit 1pole WMA, and consult JUHIWAI CBO 
members at Ipole Ward Office.
Wed 5 Nov 2003 Sikonge
Travel to Mpanda District and consult Mpanda 
District Authorities (DC, DED, DCC, DNRO). Visit 
Uruwira and Katambike Village Natural Resources 
Committee and Kambuzi Halt (Father Manyesha).
Thur 6 – Sat 8 Nov 
2003
Mpanda
Travel to Urambo via Sikonge-Izimbili Sun 9 Nov 2003 Urambo
Travel to Senga one (Ugalla Game to Reserve) and 
talk to Beekeeping and Fishing communities.
Mon 10 Nov 2003 Urambo
Do consultations with Urambo District council 
officials [DC, DED, DCC & DNRO].
Travel to Isongwa and talk to communities sharing 
Uyumbu pilot WMA and look at SUA-TU activities 
at Isongwa
Tue 11, 2003 Urambo
Travel to Tabora and synthesize materials collected Wed Nov 12, 2003 Tabora
Prepare for Evaluation workshop Thur, 13 Nov 2003 Tabora
Carry out participatory workshop Fri 14 Nov 2003 Tabora
Carry out strategic planning on the way forward. Sat 15 Nov, 2003 Tabora
Preliminary data analysis Sun 16 Nov 2003 Tabora
Travel to Dar es Salaam Mon 17 Nov 2003 Tabora
Data analysis and report write-up Tue 18 Nov to Mon 
24 Nov 2003
Dar es Salaam
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 52 of 66
ANNEX 2 OFFICIALS CONTACTED
Name Address
Ministries and Development Partners
Mr. Emmanuel L.M. Severre – Director of
Wildlife
Wildlife Division
P.O Box 1994 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2866408
E-mail wildlife-division@twiga.com
Mr. Charles Mdoe – Assistant Director –
Wildlife Development
Wildlife Division
P.O Box 1994 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2866408
E-mail wildlife-division@twiga.com
Mr. Erasmus M. Tarimo –Principal Game 
Officer, Programmes/Project Coordination
Wildlife Division
P.O Box 1994 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2866408
E-mail wildlife-division@twiga.com
Ms. Miriam O. Zacharia –Principal Game
Officer – Policy
Wildlife Division
P.O Box 1994 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2866408
E-mail wildlife-division@twiga.com
Mr. Mathew K.S. Maige – Principal Game 
Officer
Wildlife Division
P.O Box 1994 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2866408
E-mail wildlife-division@twiga.com
Mr. Daniel C. Moore –Team 
Leader/Environment Program
USAID/TANZANIA
Box 9130 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2668490
E-mail dmoore@usaid.gov
Mr. Asukile R. Kajuni – Project
Management Specialist -NRM
USAID/TANZANIA
Box 9130 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2668490
E-mail dmoore@usaid.gov
Mr. Gilbert Kajuna – Project Management 
Specialist – Environment
USAID/TANZANIA
Box 9130 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2668490
E-mail dmoore@usaid.gov
Ms Vanessa Williams – Outgoing 
Resident Representative
Africare-Tanzania
P.O Box 63187 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2151254
E-mail africare-tz@raha.com
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 53 of 66
Name Address
Ms. Cheryl Danley –
Resident Representative
Africare-Tanzania
P.O Box 63187 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2151254
E-mail africare-tz@raha.com
Mr. Alfred G. Kalaghe – Agro 
Environmental Advisor
Africare-Tanzania
P.O Box 63187 Dar es Salaam
Phone 2151254
E-mail africare-tz@raha.com
Mr. Pancras Ngalason – Chief of Party GreenCOM Tanzania
P.O box 23261 – Dar es Salaam
E-mail pngalason@epiq.or.tz
Mr. Eric Kamoga Mugurusi – Director Department of Environment
Vice President’s Office P.O Box 5380 Dar 
es Salaam.
Phone 2118416/2113983
Mr. Rawson P. Yonazi – Assistant Director 
(Policy & Planning)
Department of Environment
Vice President’s Office P.O Box 5380 Dar 
es Salaam.
Phone 2118416/2113983
E-mail sotchair@affricaonline.co.tz
Ms Ester Kerario – Director
(Environmental Impact Assessment)
National Environmental Management
Council - Dar es Salaam
Ms. Maria E. Mmari – Assistant Director
(Tourism)
Tourism Division P.O. Box 9352 Dar es
Salaam
Phone 2132302
E-mail tourism@africaonline.co.tz
Mr. Uzeeli J. Kiangi – Senior Tourism
Officer
Tourism Division P.O. Box 9352 Dar es
Salaam
Phone 2132302/2114553
E-mail tourism@africaonline.co.tz
Mr. Gerald K. Mango – Director (Physical 
Planning and Research)
National Land Use Planning Commission
P.O Box 76550 Dar es Salaam
Phone 0744-284361 022 2111583
E-mail nlupc@intafrica.com
Mr. Isaya Mnangwone – Assistant Director 
(Research, Training& Statistics)
Forestry and Beekeeping Division
P.O Box 426 Dar es Salaam
Phone 0744 -274459 022 2111062
E-mailfordev@africaonline.co.tz
Mr. Athur Dallu – Principal Forestry
Officer (Management of Natural Forests)
Forestry and Beekeeping Division
P.O Box 426 Dar es Salaam
Phone 022 2111062
E-mailfordev@africaonline.co.tz
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 54 of 66
Name Address
Ms. Hadija Ramadhani – Principal Forest 
Officer and Coordinator of Community 
Forestry
Forest Division P.O box 426 Dar es Salaam
E-mail misitu@twiga.com or
forestry@africaonline.co.tz
Mr. Gerald Kamwenda – Management 
Information Systems Officer
Forestry and Beekeeping Division
P.O Box 426 Dar es Salaam
Phone 022 2111062
E-mailfordev@africaonline.co.tz
Mr. Peter Sumbi – Forestry Programme
Coordinator 
WWF –Tanzania Programme Office
P.O Box 63117 Dar es Salaam
Phone 022-2700077
E-mail psumbi@wwftz.org
Regional/District Officials
Hon. A. H. Kandoro –Regional 
Commissioner
Tabora region
P.O Box 25 Tabora
Phone 026-9600
Mr. Peter Balie - Regional Administrative 
Secretary
Tabora region
P.O Box 25 Tabora
Phone 026-9600
Mr. Hassan Liana – Regional Natural
Resources Officer
Tabora region
P.O Box 25 Tabora
Phone 026-9600
Mr. Serene A. Chidumizi –District 
Executive Director
Urambo District Council
P.O Box 170 Urambo
Phone 43 Urambo
Dr. Ian Langiboli –District Commissioner Mpanda District 
P.O Box 34 Mpanda 
Mr. Dennis Bandisa –District Executive 
Director
Mpanda District Council
P.O Box 34 Mpanda
Mr. M.I.C. Sizya -Chairman Sikonge District Council
P.O Box 70 Sikonge
Mr. P. Yarugaba – District Community
Development Officer
Sikonge District Council
P.O Box 70 Sikonge
Mr. A. H. Malunkwi - Chairman Urambo District Council
P.O Box 170
Urambo
Mr. B.M.C.M. Midala - Project Manager Ugalla Game Reserve
P.O Box 2137 Tabora
Mr. O.S Mnyika – Assistant Commander Zonal Antipoaching Unit, Tabora
P.O Box 916 Tabora
Mr. Linus Salema – Field Conservation 
Officer
Africare – UCCP
P.O Box 70 Sikonge
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 55 of 66
Name Address
Mr. Elia Mgalihya – Field Conservation
Officer
Africare – UCCP
P.O Box 34 Mpanda
Mr. Kiyungi M. Kiyungi –District Natural
Resources Officer
Urambo District Council
P.O Box 170 Urambo
Mr. Hawethu S. Kasola – District Natural
Resources Officer
Sikonge District Council
P.O Box 70 Sikonge
Mr. P.I.A. Mwakyusa – District Fisheries
Officer
Mpanda District Council
P.O Box 1 Mpanda
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 56 of 66
ANNEX 3 AFRICARE - UCCP EVALUATION WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 
(14-15 /11/2003)
S/N NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION ADDRRES
1. Salum S. Mgeleka Chairperson Uyui P. O. Box 610 Tabora
2. N.M. Udangu
District Community 
Development Officer Urambo P. O. Box 170, Urambo
3. E.T. Rugarabamu 
District Administrative 
Secretary Urambo P. O. Box 85, Urambo
4. Kiyungu M. Kiyungi
District Natural Resources 
Officer Urambo P. O. Box 170, Urambo
5. D.L. Charles Chairperson
Mazingira Working 
Group P. O. Box 65 Sikonge
6. M.D.J. Msananga Division Secretary Sikonge P. O. Box 11 Sikonge
7. Mfaume H. Mfaume Division Secretary Kiwere P. O. Box 11 Sikonge
8. Ngassa G. Zacharia
Project Coordinator
ADAP Mpanda P. O. Box 16 Mpanda
9. Nuhu J. Ngoma Chairperson - WIMA Urambo - Uyumbu P. O. Box 32 Urambo
10. Elizabeth Simwanga Chairperson JASHUMI Urambo P. O. Box 170 Urambo
11. Hamisi Mkoma Division Secretary Usoke P. O. Box 63 Urambo
12. Dr. Ian Langiboli District Commissioner Mpanda P. O. Box 34, Mpanda
13. Hawethu S. Kasola
District Natural Resources 
Officer Sikonge P. O. Box 70,Sikonge
14. Reuben D. Kasanda Chairperson, CBO, Ipule Sikonge P. O. Box 70, Skionge
15. Titus Philip Editor R.T.D.
P. O. Box 2165 Tabora
16. Robert Conrad Jounalist Habari 
Coorperation
P. O. Box 2016 Tabora
17. M.T. Mwakalinga Division Secretary Ilolangulu P. O. Box 30, Tabora
18. M.I.C. Sizya
District Council Chairman
Sikonge P. O. Box 70, Sikonge
19. V.S. Mushi District Executive Director Sikonge P. O. Box 70, Sikonge
20. Lt. E. B. Balama District Commissioner Sikonge P. O. Box 11, Sikonge
21. Dr. G. Massangya
For Regional Natural 
Resources Officer Tabora P. O. Box 25, Tabora
22. Linus A. Salema
Field Conservation Officer Africare - UCCP 
Sikonge P. O. Box 70, Sikonge
23. A. H. Malunkwi District Council Chairman Urambo P. O. Box 170, Urambo
Participatory UCCP evaluation report April 2004 Page 57 of 66
24. O. S. Mnyika Assit. Commander ZAPU - Tabora P. O. Box 916, Tabora
25. Hon. P. J. Kalyalya
Assit. District Council 
Chairman Mpanda P. O. Box 1, Mpanda
26. P. I. A. Mwakyusa
For District Executive 
Director Mpanda P. O. Box 1, Mpanda
27. B. T. Simba
For District Natural 
Resources Officer Mpanda P. O. Box 86, Mpanda
28. C.A. Kimamba Division Secretary Inyonga P. O. Box 34, Mpanda
29. Eliya Mgalihya Field Conservation Officer
Africare UCCP 
Mpanda P. O. Box 625, Tabora
30. Midala, B.M.C.M. Project Manager Ugalla Game 
Reserve
P. O. Box 2137, Tabora
31. Col. P. Madaha District Commissioner Uyui P. O. Box 1624, Tabora
32. Bernedetha Chile Field Officer
Regional Forestry 
Office P. O. Box 1875, Tabora
33. Erasto Mbillingi
Ag. District Executive 
Director Urambo P. O. Box 170, Urambo
34. Peter Ottaru Principal Game Officer Wildlife Division P. O. Box 1994, Dsm
35. Edward L. Massawe
Field Conservation Officer Africare - UCCP -
Urambo P. O. Box 170, Urambo
36. Emannuel Kushoka
District Natural Resources 
Officer Tabora District P. O. Box 610, Tabora
37. Chales Mulokozi Project Manager Simmors, Urambo P. O. Box 25, Urambo
38. G.C. Kajembe Professor/Consultant SUA 
P. O. Box 3013, 
Morogoro
39. A.B. Chonya Project Field Assistant SUA-TU Tabora P. O. Box 1721, Tabora
40. B.K Kaale . Consultant TASONABI P. O. Box 8550, Dsm
41. Shidumu Mawe Project Coordinator Africare - UCCP P. O. Box 625, Tabora
42. Alfred Kalaghe
Agro-Environmental 
Advisor Africare Tanzania P. O. Box 63187, Dsm.
43. D.M. Gamassa Principal/Consultant C.A.W.M. Mweka P. O. Box 3031, Moshi
44. R. Eliapenda DED Uyui P.O. Box 610 Tabora