����������������� ������������������

������������� �

1 – 11 March 2000

by

Marshall W. Murphree

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

2. Project Purpose.......................................................................................... 3

3. Project Performance ................................................................................. 5

Output No. 1: “Appropriate institutional framework for community-based conservation established in Idodi and Pawaga.” (5)

Output No. 2: “Villages and district stakeholders’ capacity to sustainably manage NR in Idodi and Pawaga enhanced.” (7)

Output No. 3: “Sustainable utilisation of NR in Idodi and Pawaga ensured.” (8)

Output No. 4: “Community benefits from NR utilisation increased.” (9)

Output No. 5: “Agreed strategy to convert LMGCA into WMA.” (13)

Administrative Constraints (14)

4. Recommendations ................................................................................... 15

Recommendation No. 1: Re-structuring the organisational framework (15)

Recommendation No. 2: Intra-Village Participation (17)

Recommendation No. 3: Land and Resource Use Planning (18)

Recommendation No. 4: Monitoring Systems (18)

Recommendation No. 5: Investigations on Resource Availability, Revenue Potential and Marketing (18)

Recommendation No. 6: Training and Capacity Enhancement (19)

5. The Project in National Policy Evolution and Co-ordination

on CBC/CBNRM ..................................................................................... 21

6. Project Continuance, Requirements and Exit...................................... 23

List of Annexes

Annex A Terms of Reference.............................................................................. 24

Annex B Schedule of Meetings and Activities ....................................................... 25

Annex C Composition of MBOMIPA Project Steering Committee ........................... 26

Annex D Lundu-Mkwambi South: Income from Hunting Blocks 1996-1999 .............. 27

Annex E Documents Consulted and References Cited ............................................ 28

Review of Government of Tanzania/DFID

MBOMIPA Project

1 – 11 March 2000

By

Marshall W. Murphree

1. Introduction

1.1 This report is rendered in terms of the Draft Terms of Reference for the consultancy,

finalised between the consultant and the DFID Natural Resources Advisor in Dar es

Salaam on 1 March 2000 (Annex A). All operational requirements of the ToR have

been carried out. The substantive issues singled out for attention are all addressed in

this report, although not necessarily in the order in which they appear in the ToR.

1.2 Interviews were conducted in Dar es Salaam and Iringa. After an initial meeting with

the DFID Natural Resources Advisor (Jon Salmon) on arrival in Dar es Salaam on

March 1, I flew to Iringa on the morning of March 2, with Dr. Alex Songorwa of the

Wildlife Division’s CBC Unit. During my stay in Iringa, Dr. Songorwa accompanied

me during all meetings and field visits, providing me with invaluable background

information and insights, serving as interpreter in village meetings and acting as

informal co-investigator in the exercise. In Iringa, in addition to several meetings

with the Project staff, meetings were held with the District Natural Resource Officer,

the Community Conservation Warden of Ruaha National Park, TANAPA, the District

Administration Secretary in the District Commissioner’s Office and the District

Manpower Officer in the District Council offices. Four village meetings were

conducted in the Project area: at Idodi and Malinzanga in the Idodi Division and at

Itunundo and Ilolo Mpya in the Pawaga Division. Attendance at these meetings was

comprised largely of Village Council, Village Natural Resource Committee and

Village Game Scout personnel, and in two instances (Idodi and Ilolo Mpya) included

Ward Councillors who are members of the Project Steering Committee. On return to

2

Dar es Salaam meetings were held with the Principal Game Officer and Co-ordinator

of Programmes of the Wildlife Division and DFID Staff. A schedule of meetings and

activities is attached as Annex B.

1.3 Within the constraints of the time available, I am satisfied that this range of meetings

and interviews provides an adequate basis on which to judge the spectrum of relevant

perspectives that inform the project. The schedule would have been enhanced had I

been able to meet with the District Commissioner and District Executive Director,

particularly because of some indications that the perspectives of the District Council

Executive and those of the Project have not always coincided. Neither of these two

officials were, however, in Iringa when I was there. More time would have also

permitted interviews with persons and agencies involved in projects connected with

forestry, such as MEMA.

1.4 Prior to my arrival in Dar es Salaam, I was provided with the very useful Key Issues

for the MBOMIPA Project (Feb. 2000) by Martin Walsh. On arrival the DFID office

gave me a large number of background documents. These included relevant legislative

and policy publications, materials on the Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management

Project (REWMP), the DFID Country Strategy Paper, the main Project document and

notes from participants in the “Output to Purpose” Review conducted 7-11 February,

2000. In Iringa the Project office provided me with a set of documentation which

included field reports, work plans and district background information. Importantly,

this set included the 13 reports (11 in draft) of the village participatory land use

planning exercises commissioned in 1999 and now completed. A full list of

documents consulted appears in Annex E.

1.5 Acknowledgements: My debt to Dr. Songorwa has already been mentioned above in

paragraph 1.2. It should be noted, of course, that the analysis and views in this report

are those of the consultant and not necessarily his. My thanks go to the Project staff at

Iringa for their efficient planning and logistic support, and for their gracious

hospitality. The same applies to DFID staff in Dar es Salaam. I am grateful to

officials in the Wildlife Division, TANAPA and council government for their time

and insights. Finally, my thanks go to those in the Project villages who accepted the

intrusion on their weekend time to meet with us, in two instances on a day when there

had been a death in the community. Perhaps, the greatest tribute to them that I can

3

make is the sense that I had that for them these meetings were more of an opportunity

than an intrusion.

2. Project Purpose

2.1 Any review of MBOMIPA must take into account its precursor, the Ruaha Ecosystem

Wildlife Management Project (REWMP). Funded by the British Government and

implemented in collaboration with TANAPA and the WD, REWMP had two

components, park planning for Ruaha National Park and a community wildlife

management project that was initiated in 1993. MBOMIPA followed on from the

second of these components, and the British Government thus has a seven-year

investment in the Project area.

2.2 In its initial phase MBOMIPA had as its purpose “an effective and sustainable wildlife

system, under community authority and responsibility” in the Project area. More

recently, the purpose has been changed with the wording “To improve livelihoods of

people in the proposed Lunda-Mkwambi Wildlife Management Area (LMWMA) by

establishing sustainable natural resource management under community authority and

responsibility in Pawaga and Idodi divisions.” This shift in purpose from a

“sustainable wildlife system” to the improvement of livelihoods effectively turns

wildlife management from an end in itself to a means for a human livelihood. This is

consistent with shifts in British Government policy on poverty alleviation (HMSO,

1997) and DFID’s Tanzania Country Strategy Paper (DFID, 1999). It is also

consistent with community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)

approaches that emphasise the importance of the economic values of natural

resources.

2.3 This shift in purpose is healthy, showing Project learning and responsiveness to local

conditions and motivations. It carries with it, however, certain dangers:

2.3.1 The re-prioritisation of conservation and livelihood concerns may diminish an

awareness of the synergy between the two and an over-emphasis on one to the

exclusion of the other.

2.3.2 Emphasis on the economic benefits of natural resources frequently ignores the

holistic perspective that its rigorous advocacy requires. At its core, the

4

economic benefit argument advocates highest-value modes of sustainable

usage across the range of land and natural resources available, either actual or

potential. A corollary of this, usually ignored in the wildlife sector, is that if

wildlife is not the highest land use value (or has the potential to be: the

“maintaining options” consideration) then the land it occupies should be

converted to other uses. This implies fine-grained project contextualisation, a

point taken up below in paragraph 2.3.3.

2.3.3 The economic benefit approach to development and poverty alleviation tends

to ignore other important forms of poverty (social and cultural, biodiversity,

rights to experimentation and learning) and the capacity of human beings to

adapt to conditions of demand, supply and control. Development is thus not

only about the conservation of resources as an investment in their future

utility, nor is it solely about the use of resources to supply essential goods and

services. Fundamentally development is about facilitating resourcefulness.

2.4 The locus of this facilitation is collective action at the locality or “community” level,

which has already been specified in the Project’s planning. There is strong analytic

justification for this location in Sub-Saharan Africa on demographic, ecological and

cultural grounds. It is also consistent with Tanzania’s preferred approach to local

government reform, as articulated by the Local Government Reform Team:

“The local government reform is part of the Public Sector Reform, whose

main goal is to improve the performance of the public sector, to increase

accountability and to put a stop to mismanagement and waste improving on

the delivery of services. Bringing powers, functions and resources to the

people in the communities is a key factor of this strategy.” (Quoted in Shivji

and Peter, 1999: 20. Italics added)

2.5 Taking into consideration the points made in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 above, it follows

that another, as yet largely unspecified, project purpose should be considered. This is

the facilitation of resilient local natural resource management systems capable of

dealing adaptively with the supply, demand and control requirements which

demographic, economic, cultural and ecological change will inevitably entail. This is

a governance and institutional purpose, and its pre-eminence may, in log-frame logic,

elevate it to ‘goal’ status to replace the original goal in MBOMIPA (“Ruaha

5

ecosystem sustainably managed for the economic benefit of the nation”) which is now

clearly outdated.

3. Project Performance

3.1 This section reviews project progress to date by project outputs as stipulated in the

log-frame. A final sub-section on “administrative constraints” is also included.

3.2 Materials from documentary sources, interviews and the village meetings are used in

this assessment. Of particular importance have been the village meeting discussions

and the village reports produced by the village participatory land use planning team.

Both data sets need to be treated with some caution. The village reports are not really

land use planning exercises but rather descriptive scoping documents. They do,

however, provide significant data on land and natural resource use, on attitudes by

various categories of village membership, and on perspectives on MBOMIPA by

“non-elite” villagers. How representative these views are is difficult to judge, but it is

clear that the team made an effort to cover as wide a spectrum of categories as was

possible. The four village meetings conducted during this consultancy were, as

already noted (paragraph 1.2), attended largely by village leadership. Being a village

elite, one can reasonably suggest that this category would have a tendency to assert

their legitimacy and performance and to direct the main thrust of their criticisms

outward. At the same time it should be noted that there was an element of self-

criticism in the comments made, as well as evidence of a genuine commitment to

collective village development.

3.3 Output No. 1: “Appropriate institutional framework for

community-based conservation established in Idodi and

Pawaga.”

3.3.1 Judged against the “measurable indicators” the Project is on target,

with the role and composition of the Steering Committee due for review in

October of this year. This is a commendable performance of what, in itself, is

a detailed and painstaking process. There are, however, serious deficiencies in

the institutional framework noted below.

6

3.3.2 At the intra-village level the concern expressed in some reports about

potential conflict between village councils and VNRCs does not seem to be a

major issue. VNRCs recognise their status as committees of the VC, and both

recognise that their mandate stems from the Village Assembly. Of more

immediate concern is the apparent lack of tight linkages between the VNRCs

and the generality of village membership. Attitudes towards MBOMIPA

reported in the land use surveys were generally negative. While some

informants saw positive benefits, more saw MBOMIPA through the lens of

contacts with village game scouts, as an enforcement agency for imposed

regulations. Most damning of all were the reactions of many, who stated that

they had little knowledge of what MBOMIPA was about. This is not primarily

a structural or institutional framework issue; it is more an issue of intra-village

communication and collective action and recommendations on this point are

made below in paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. One structural approach to this

issue does, however, merit further consideration, which is to investigate the

potential of giving more focus to organisation at the sub-village level and its

articulation to the VNRC.

3.3.3 There is little evidence that inter-village co-ordination exists to any

effective level. The importance of co-ordination at this level has a correlation

with proximity, type of activity and resource interdependence. There is, for

instance, little need for tight management linkages on this plane between the

Makifu and Itunundo villages at the opposite ends of the Project area. It can

be highly important where two villages share the range of a mobile resource

(e.g. buffalo). This matter is addressed below in paragraphs 4.2.1 to 4.2.3.

3.3.4 A structure has been established to effect Project area/District Council

co-ordination in the Steering Committee. As presently established, its

membership (see Annex C) does not properly reflect the balance of interest

that should be accorded to the primary stakeholders, only five of the eighteen

members being from the Project villages themselves. The Steering Committee

does not meet with the frequency projected; its meetings are more episodic and

relate to specific issues such as the setting of quotas and the allocation of

hunting blocks. This suggests that its agendas are seen as peripheral by a large

7

part of its membership, while it is central for those in the Project area itself.

This issue is addressed in the recommendations of this report below in

paragraph 4.2.4.

3.4 Output No. 2: “Villages and district stakeholders’ capacity

to sustainably manage NR in Idodi and Pawaga enhanced.”

3.4.1 At the village level a good start has been made on this output, with

initial training to VNRCs and VGs having been provided. However, capacity

enhancement is still embryonic in terms of the over-all objectives of the

Project, and remains focussed on these categories of personnel. In particular,

I was impressed with the general insights and grasp of issues exhibited by

members of the village councils and VNRCs, which I attribute more to the

focus of their responsibilities and experiential learning than to formal training.

There is little evidence that this capacity enhancement has spread to larger

village memberships. The membership of the village councils and VNRCs

recognise this, and indeed one of their most consistent recommendations was

for training in their constituencies through both extension work and exchange

visits.

3.4.2 Capacity enhancement at the level does not occur in the abstract.

There is little motivation for villagers to attend training sessions on natural

resource management unless they are linked to specific objectives that are

perceived to be of direct relevance to their daily lives. To achieve this focus

land and resource planning provides a critical fulcrum, and recommendations

are made in this regard in paragraphs 4.4.1 to 4.4.2.

3.4.3 Game guard training needs to be augmented. At present the VCGs

appear to see their role in enforcement terms and there is little appreciation of

their roles in facilitating planning and good practice. Recommendations are

made in paragraph 4.7.2.

3.4.4 District-level capacity building. Generally, it appears that district-level

officials are inadequately equipped to perform their facilitatory roles. In part

8

this is due to the chronic syndrome found not only in Tanzania but also

elsewhere in the region, where senior officials are frequently moved and do

not gain a long-term grasp of the issues and dynamics involved in a particular

posting. The possible exception to this is to be found in line ministry postings,

an example being the DNRO interviewed at Iringa. This category is thus a

particularly important target for training, details of which are suggested in

paragraph 4.7.3.

3.5 Output No. 3: “Sustainable utilisation of NR in Idodi and

Pawaga ensured.”

3.5.1 Sustainability in the use of natural resources is a goal which, at the

leadership level, appears to be accepted as a goal. Apart from this, there

appears to be little progress in Project performance on this output. A start has

been made in the PRA land use planning exercises but as has been already

noted these are essentially scoping products and three villages have yet to be

visited before this component is completed. Village land and resource plans,

even at a generalised level, are an essential first step in actualising the concept

of sustainability at this level. These must be fully participatory and involve the

entire range of village stakeholders so that sufficient consensus is reached for

the plans to have the mandate of the village assembly. When this has been

achieved perceptions of finiteness will be raised and the legitimacy of many of

the activities initiated by the Project will be enhanced. All of this will take

time and resources, but the Project will be justified in the allocation of

significant resources at this point in time to realise this product.

Recommendations are provided in paragraphs 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 below.

3.5.2 Sustainability in natural resource use is not a fixed point definable in

terms of the status of quantifiable ecological goods and services. It is a

dynamic relationship between demand and supply manipulated by a variety of

control mechanisms, which require continuous adjustment. Critical to this

process of “adaptive management” is a system of monitoring and feedback.

This is envisaged in the log-frame but has not yet been initiated

3.5.3 The monitoring and feed-back system should include two components:

a) ecological, and b) institutional. For both of these components approaches

9

which are low-tech and implementable by villagers have been developed for

CBNRM programmes elsewhere in Eastern and Southern Africa and should be

considered for adaptation to the Project’s needs. Recommendations appear in

paragraphs 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.

3.5.4 One aspect of sustainability at community level, which has not been

taken up in the Project Document or the log-frame, is the issue of exclusion.

For a local management system to work it needs defined areas of jurisdiction

and powers of inclusion and exclusion. For villages in the project area the first

of these appears not to be a problem; villages have fixed and sanctioned

boundaries. Inclusion presents an institutional problem due to the multi-ethnic

character of membership, which must be addressed by consensus – building

processes, importantly including the land and resource planning activities

projected. Exclusion may, however, be difficult, since I was informed during

village meetings that “the laws of Tanzania” prohibit the refusal by a village of

the right to settle by any intending immigrant. This may be an issue beyond

the ability of the Project to address, but because of its importance the matter

should be investigated further.

3.6 Output No. 4. “Community benefits from NR utilisation

increased.”

3.6.1 Evaluation of Project performance in respect to this output must keep

in mind the caveat raised above in paragraph 2.3: that “benefit” cannot be

considered solely in economic terms. Institutionalised capacity to deal with

risk, uncertainty and change (the enhancement of “resourcefulness”) is a major

benefit, which cannot be ignored by the Project and its sponsors. Beyond this,

natural resource management should strive to improve the provision of both

ecological goods (production for consumption or exchange) and ecological

services (provision of ecological components which ensure a healthy

environment, i.e. the maintenance of an environmental base where soil

fertility, water availability, carbon sequestration, atmospheric quality and

biodiversity retain systemic fecundity). The latter are important not only for

NR productivity but also for the productivity of conventional agriculture,

freedom from pollution and human health. Ecological services are therefore a

10

central component to improved livelihoods and cannot be omitted in the

fulfilment of the Project purpose to provide “benefit”.

3.6.2 These points having been made, direct economic benefit remains an

important Project output for the following reasons:

�� Such benefits are important in raising the awareness of small-scale

farmers of the potential of “off-farm” resources to contribute to their

household livelihoods.

�� The actualisation of this potential can, when resource/demand ratios

are favourable, contribute significantly to the provision of community

service infrastructure and in some cases to household revenues and capital

accumulation.

�� Revenues from collective utilisation can provide an essential element

in the sustainability of local governance, the ability to be financially

independent in resource management and administration. Full devolution

in resource management cannot be achieved without the ability of

communities to not only exercise authority but also pay for the activities

this authority entails. Until this happens incentives to increase production

and reduce overheads will be curtailed, dependency will remain and local

empowerment will be diluted. These considerations should figure

prominently in any project strategy that seeks to leave behind it a system of

sustainable resource management.

3.6.3 The “measurable indicators” for performance on this output are two: a)

diversified forms of utilisation; and b) revenue increases from resource

utilisation of at least 10% p.a. from YR1. On diversification little appears to

have developed, although the Project and the DNRO’s office have given honey

production some extension attention. Attempts to liaise with other agencies

concerned with the exploitation of woodland products have been initiated, but

little in the way of programme activity is in evidence. The village meetings

placed emphasis on diversification but had little in the way of concrete

suggestions. There is potential for increased production and revenue

generation from woodland products and this is addressed below in paragraph

11

3.6.6 (d). However, realism suggests that opportunities for revenue increases

outside the arena of wildlife production are limited in the immediate future.

3.6.4 Revenue production from wildlife use has easily met the target of

annual increases above 10%. Leaving aside, for the moment, the seven

villages in the Pawaga Division which derive their wildlife revenue from a

share of tourist hunting proceeds in LMGCA North, and excluding revenue

from the Mkupule block in the south-west, which effectively serves as a

district hunting block, Annex D shows increments of 65% in 1997, 74% in

1998 and 13% in 1999 over the 1996 baseline prior to MBOMIPA.

Cumulatively income for the nine villages involved in 1999 was 324% higher

than that in the year prior to Project inception.

3.6.5 This is an impressive performance, although the percentage drop in the

last year may be cause for concern. Furthermore, although percentage

increases are impressive revenue size is small, amounting to between TS

1,000,000 and 1,500,000 per village in 1999. Revenue figures of this order of

magnitude are unlikely to have much impact on household economies,

although villagers are quick to point out that when used for community

projects (e.g. schools and clinics) they lighten the village tax burden on

households. However, while current incomes have great symbolic

significance, it is clear that these revenues will have to be pushed much higher

if wildlife is to pay for its direct and opportunity costs, make significant

contributions to village development and cover the administrative and

management costs discussed in paragraph 3.6.2.

3.6.6 A number of ways to increase wildlife revenues while sustaining the

resource base suggest themselves:

a) The range of species and number of animals placed on license

should be re-examined. The suggested off-take regime in the Project

Document (pp. A.2.12 – A.2.22) is appropriately conservative but a

number of species are not suggested for off-take, although

12

sustainability considerations would dictate that such off-takes should

be small.1

b) Competitive marketing of the wildlife in the project area

villages should be given further active consideration. At present the

nine villages with hunting quotas market these quotas through auction

to resident hunters. This arrangement is the result of prolonged

negotiations between the villagers, the District Council, resident

hunters (through HAT), the Project and the WD. It has been suggested

that by opening LMGCA South to international tourist safari hunting

the value of these quotas could be increased by a factor of up to four.

This, however, needs further consideration, since this is a matter not

only of prevailing comparative prices by species but also the

attractiveness of the area as a “package” to professional operators. It is

recognised that this issue has political dimensions, particularly at the

district level, and that resident hunters are stakeholders with a role to

play. This role must, however, be played with flexibility and in

recognition that discounted resident hunting must take cognisance of

market dynamics. This has been the record in South Africa, Namibia,

Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia, and is unlikely to be different in

Tanzania. In village meetings participants themselves suggested this

option and it bears close investigation as under current circumstances

the villages are in effect subsidising the hunting of a predominately

urban district elite.

c) The leasing of prime sites for tourism lodge development has

been raised in the Project reports and was mentioned by participants in

the village meetings. Elsewhere in the SADC region this mode of NR

use has developed momentum, particularly in Namibia and Botswana.

It is attractive to tour operators, particularly those in the niche and

1 The addition of two trophy elephant to the quota (cf. Table 8, p. A.2.19, Project Document) would add

possibly US $30,000 - $50,000 dollars to total revenue. However political considerations in both the donor and

host countries probably preclude this option currently, and this suggestion relates to other species.

13

ecotourism markets. In certain – and probably comparably rare –

circumstances it can yield revenues well in excess of those generated

by tourist safari hunting (cf. Murphree, 2000, for example). Whether

this option presents viable opportunities in the Project area is still not

clear. It will depend on the continued buoyancy of the tourism

industry, the development of the “Southern Circuit” in Tanzania, the

international marketing of Tanzanian tourism and the specific

attractions of any potential sites in the Project area. This option should,

however, be actively pursued through consultancy investigation, as

recommended below in paragraphs 4.6.1 and 4.6.2.

d) The commercialisation of woodland products may have

potential to raise revenues. Currently there is local harvesting for

fuelwood and building timber, and the management of this harvesting

for sustainable off-take is a task for VNRCs. I was not able to get

information as to whether there is a trade in commercial hardwoods, or

its potential. The same applies to the use and marketing of charcoal

and thatching grass. Nor was I able to get information on the

collection, use and marketing of medicinal plants. Studies elsewhere in

the SADC region indicate that this is often ignored or under-rated. In

Natal, for instance, the value of medicinal plants marketed in Durban

far exceeds that of safari hunting and tourism combined. At the

moment the revenue potential of such projects appears to be largely

unexplored and should be the subject of further investigation, possibly

in conjunction with such projects as MEMA.

e) Wildlife income accruing to the seven villages in the Pawaga

division without hunting quotas derives from a portion of the safari

hunting revenues of LMGCA North negotiated by the WD. They are

therefore largely beyond the control of the Project, although it may be

possible for the Steering Committee to negotiate a larger share of

receipts for these villages. Depending on the specifics of the

anticipated Guidelines on the conversion of GCAs to GMAs and the

possibility that these villages could become an “Authorised

14

Association” with proprietorship over LMGCA North, revenues to

these villages could rise significantly.

3.7 Output No. 5: “Agreed strategy to convert LMGCA into

WMA.”

3.7.1 The Project has made inputs into the process of developing Guidelines

for the conversion of GCAs to WMAs. It is understood that draft guidelines

are now with the Director of the Wildlife Division and under review, with the

promulgation of the Guidelines expected in mid-year 2000. While the

specifics of these Guidelines are not now known there is no indication at

present that they will fundamentally obstruct the policy emphasis on further

devolution of management responsibility and revenue benefit from centre to

periphery, with appropriate government overnight. In an interview with the

Principal Game Officer and Co-ordinator of the Wildlife Division in Dar es

Salaam on 8th March 2000, I outlined the main findings and recommendations

of this report. He communicated that the emphasis of the WD was on the

localisation of governance and that the Guidelines would take cognisance of

this. The profile of recommendations that I had presented was consistent with

this. He added that the policy would be fluid and evolve, and he felt that

projects like MBOMIPA could contribute to this evolution and should be

given longer time-frames in order to do this effectively.

3.7.2 While there is of course no guarantee at this stage that the Guidelines

will not contain aspects difficult to accommodate in the Project area, I suggest

that it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that they will present no

insuperable obstacles to the devolutionist thrust of the project. Working from

this assumption, the project can play a major role in the detailed but critical

transition from “guidelines’ to actualisation. The recommendations, which

follow in Section 4, address components of this transition.

3.8 Administrative Constraints

I was not asked to investigate administrative issues, nor did I examine them closely.

Two issues were, however, drawn to my attention, which deserve brief comment.

15

Firstly, there were complaints about a lack of clarity on budgetary and planning

matters, both at the village and project team levels. Villagers complained that project

budgets were not always clear to them and that they were sometimes marginalised in

planning by complex procedures and planning idiom. The project team stated that

they were not always clear on over-all project budgets and expenditure. These are

communicational matters rather than fundamental differences in perspective, but they

need to be given attention since they otherwise detract from what are essentially good

relationships between the villages, the project office and the donor. Secondly, there is

the issue of differential salary scales within the project team, arising from the different

professional locations of its members. This is one of those dilemmas in which

principle, precedent and perception combine to produce apparently intractable but

potentially corrosive problems. Some innovative lateral thinking is needed here, since

the combination of seconded government staff and project-employed contract staff in

a single project team is one of the strengths of MBOMIPA.

4. Recommendations

4.1 Introduction

The recommendations which follow in this section have their ultimate roots in the

goal for the project discussed in paragraph 2.5 of this report, i.e. the development of

resilient, localised natural resource management systems nested in larger district and

national structures of co-ordination and oversight. This is consistent with the project

purpose and its stipulated project outputs. To date, the findings on project

performance above indicate that a good start has been made, but they also indicate that

certain restructuring is required to institutionalise MBOMIPA on an enduring basis,

both “outwardly” and ”inwardly.” They further indicate that much remains to be done

in the valorisation of the natural resource base and in the development of local

capacities to manage it. Taken together, the recommendations constitute a long-term

“exit strategy” in which MBOMIPA is transformed from a project to an ongoing and

self-sufficient system of natural resource governance.

4.2 Recommendation No. 1: Re-structuring the organisational framework

4.2.1 To date MBOPIMA has been organised in a unitary manner, with the

seven villages in the Idodi Division and the nine villages in the Pawaga

16

Division constituting the project area with the 16 villages of the area

represented on the Project Steering Committee by 5 ward councillors. At this

stage there are good reasons to disagregate the organisational structure in the

project area:

�� Participants in the village meetings strongly supported this suggestion,

ostensibly on logistic grounds. They argued that it would be far easier for

them to communicate with the project on a regular and timely basis if the

project had two sub-offices in the project area, one in the Pawaga division

and one in the Idodi division. The project has in fact taken steps in this

direction; a building has been constructed at Luganga in the Pawaga

division for this purpose and plans exist to build a similar building in the

Idodi division.

�� More substantively, a sub-division of the project area along these lines

would correspond to functional differences between the two divisions.

Idodi derives its revenues primarily from hunting quotas while Pawaga

receives its revenues from LMGCA North and these differences create

considerably different sets of planning and administrative approaches. (On

this functional basis the institutional location of Isele and Kisanga, the two

quota hunting villages in Pawaga, needs further consideration).

Furthermore it is clear that villages in the two divisions are differentially

endowed with wildlife and wild land. Wildlife resource/human demand

ratios are therefore significantly different. Table 4 of the Project Document

(p. A.2.9) dramatically illustrates this. All villages in the Idodi division

have wild land in excess of 44 km2 and human population densities of less

than 18.6 persons per km2. In Pawaga only Isele has any significant wild

land and a population density of less than 33 persons per km2. Following

on from the analysis found in paragraph 2.3.2 of this report, one can

predict that in the longer term only the villages in Idodi are likely to retain

exploitable wildlife populations and have NR regimes in which wild

resources can form a significant “economic benefit” component. (Kisanga

and Isele in Pawaga may fall into this category, particularly if their riparian

position on the Ruaha provides attractive tourism lodge sites). The

17

Pawaga villages are likely to be almost exclusively agricultural in their

economies. Here natural resource management should be focussed on the

maintenance of ecological services (see paragraph 3.6.1) and, if they are

able to gain “authorised association” status and proprietorship of LMGCA

North, the collective management of this area.

�� The location of two project offices in the area would strengthen the sense

of “ownership” of the project by the villages and would contribute to the

evolutionary devolution that the project seeks. This will only happen,

however, if there are clear understandings from the start that the

maintenance and staffing of these sub-offices, with all the costs involved,

will be progressively taken over by the villages they serve according to a

pre-determined timetable. (See paragraph 3.6.2 for rationale).

4.2.2 I suggest that each of these sub-offices be staffed with an NRM

facilitator, at a level equating to presently established community development

assistants but with additional training in NRM. They should preferably be

locally recruited. Training recommendations in this connection appear below

in paragraph 4.7.5.

4.2.3 Each sub-division should have its own committee structure, with

representation from all member villages.

4.2.4 At the Project level the Steering Committee should be reconstituted to

better reflect the interests of the primary stakeholders and to represent the

diverse interests of the two sub-divisions. Notionally I suggest that this

representation should include the chairs of the two sub-division committees

and three other representatives from each, a total of eight from the project area.

Outside this core group the District Commissioner, the District Executive

Director, the District Natural Resources Officer and the MBOMIPA Project

Manager should be members. The MBOMIPA Field Manager, Community

Conservation Officer and Community Development Advisor should attend

meetings as advisors, as should the District Community Development Officer

and the Principal Park Warden of Ruaha National Park. Other organisations

may be invited to attend, depending on the agenda concerned.

18

4.3 Recommendation No. 2: Intra-Village Participation

4.3.1 Paragraph 3.3.2 notes an “apparent lack of tight linkages between the

VNRCs and the generality of village membership.” This is a critical issue for

CBC governance and the paragraph recommends better intra-village

communication and more in the way of collective action.

4.3.2 On the communications issue it is recommended that each village be

facilitated to develop constitutions for their VNRCs which are approved by

village assemblies, and that these constitutions, relevant bye-laws and

statements of accounts be printed, circulated and posted throughout the

villages. On collective action, see below under paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5.

4.3.3 The potential of sub-villages to serve as “building blocks” in village

natural resource management should be investigated.

4.4 Recommendation No. 3: Land and Resource Use Planning

4.4.1 Paragraphs 3.4.2 and 3.5.1 suggest that village level and resource

planning is not only essential for good management, but also provides a

fulcrum for intra-village participation and communication. The

recommendation here is that the beginning provided by the RRA surveys now

be developed in village exercises which result in plans approved by village

assemblies.

4.4.2 This will be an iterative and detailed process, requiring facilitation and

considerable time. It will need field-based extension resources beyond those

that the Project staff have available, and I recommend that two extension

teams of two persons each be recruited and trained by the Project staff for this

purpose, each team to work in one of the sub-divisions of the project area. I

estimate that eight months will be needed for the exercise, including training.

Budgeting should provide for logistics, professional mapping and document

circulation.

4.5 Recommendation No. 4: Monitoring Systems

19

4.5.1 Paragraph 3.5.3 sets out the case for the installation of two monitoring

systems, one ecological and one institutional, each of which are low-tech and

implementable by the villagers themselves.

4.5.2 Such monitoring systems have been developed in other CBNRM

programmes in the SADAC region. The recommendation is that two short

consultancies by persons familiar with these systems be conducted to produce

adaptations suitable for the Project.

4.6 Recommendation No. 5: Investigations on

Resource Availability, Revenue Potential and

Marketing

4.6.1 This recommendation arises from the observations on increasing

revenues found in paragraphs 3.6.6 (a) to (d). These paragraphs suggest that

further investigation is needed on:

�� The range of species and number of animals that could be placed on quota.

�� The mode and comparative values of different approaches to marketing

quotas, and the contractual specifics involved.

�� The potential for non-consumptive tourism leases in the Project area, and

the contractual options involved.

�� The actual and potential marketing of woodland products in the area.

4.6.2 I suggest that these investigations should proceed by way of

consultancies. The first two could probably be packaged together in one

consultancy. The third is probably a “stand alone” exercise, although it could

be done with the first two provided a suitable range of expertise was available

in the consultancy team. The fourth is clearly a separate exercise of

considerable proportions. It might possibly be done in conjunction with

MEMA.

4.7 Recommendation No. 6: Training and Capacity

Enhancement

4.7.1 Training and capacity enhancement are identified as needs at a number

of points in Section 3 of this report. Much of this arises “on the job,” as for

20

instance suggested in paragraph 3.4.2. Here the challenge to the Project is to

provide the right context for learning to arise organically and acquire a

perpetuating dynamic of its own.

4.7.2 In certain instances more formalised training sessions may be

appropriate. These include training in bookkeeping, minute taking and game

guard training. (cf. Paragraph 3.4.3) The Project team should be able to

organise these within the Project area.

4.7.3 “Look and learn” / exchange visits. The SADC CBNRM experience

has shown that this is one of the most effective training techniques available

for personnel at both village and district levels. It is expensive and requires

considerable organisation, but the results justify the investment. I recommend

that the Project devote significant resources to this. The SADC Wildlife Co-

ordinating Unit in Lilongwe and ART, Harare, have materials and advice

which may be useful.

4.7.4 The IUCN Regional Office for Southern Africa, in conjunction with

CASS at the University of Zimbabwe have for a number of years offered a

regional short course on Social Science Perspectives in Natural Resources

Management. The course runs for six weeks, with two intakes per year.

Qualifications require a degree or diploma plus experience, and the course is

targeted at mid-range professionals serving in wildlife, forestry, fisheries and

local government agencies. Only a few Tanzanians have attended the course.

The course would be particularly useful for District Council personnel, and the

Project should consider sponsoring 2 or 3 of these to take the course during

2000/2001. Alternatively or in addition to this, the Project might wish to take

a lead in initiating a similar national-based course, possibly to be conducted by

the Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation at the Sokoine University of

Agriculture. (Mozambique has taken such an initiative, largely for language

reasons and as an offshoot of the IUCN/CASS regional course.)

4.7.5 The training of the two sub-office NRM facilitators suggested in

paragraph 4.2.2 needs special attention. The proposal is that these be locally

recruited and have (or receive) training to that required for community

development assistants, but that on top of this they receive training in NRM

21

management and administration. The Project should take responsibility for

this and investigate possible available training in Tanzania for this "“top-up."

If this is not available, one approach to this “top-up” may be to have them

attend the short course mentioned in paragraph 4.7.4, supplemented by short

attachments to other CBNRM programmes in Tanzania or elsewhere in the

SADC region.

5. The Project in National Policy Evolution and Co-ordination on CBC/CBNRM

5.1 Analytically MBOMIPA is an extremely important case study for general CBNRM

policy and practice in two respects:

5.1.1 It incorporates in one project all three categories of “community

conservation” which typological analysis has produced, i.e.: a) community

outreach programmes by state protected areas; b) co-management and

resource/benefit programmes; and c) community-based NRM programmes

with devolved authority, responsibility and benefit. Commonly community

conservation projects are usually designed to focus almost exclusively on one

of these types but in the MBOMIPA instance we find all three being actively

pursued. In its co-operation with TANAPA’s support for Community Initiated

Projects (SCIP) surrounding Ruaha National Park and its incorporation of a

TANAPA community conservation warden in the Project team, MBOMIPA is

a community outreach programme. In its arrangements with the WD for

revenue sharing of proceeds from LMGCA North with the Pawaga villages

MBOMIPA is a resource sharing programme, with the possibility that if the

GCA is converted to a WMA it will become a full-blow co-management

programme. In the villages with off-take quotas it is well on its way towards

being a programme of devolved proprietorship. One can also add that in the

case of Mkupule it incorporates a further sub-type, that of council

proprietorship.

5.1.2 MBOMIPA is an all-too-rare example of a project which has been

willing to evolve, with donor backing for this evolution. Frequently CC

22

projects fail because they do not have this flexibility. In the case of

MBOMIPA we can trace this evolution through the following stages:

�� Commencement under REWMP with an initial emphasis on park planning

�� The addition of a community component in the “buffer zone” or Integrated

Conservation and Development (ICDP) mode.

�� The development of resource/revenue sharing in Pawaga, local wildlife

production and marketing in Idodi and institutions for local NR

management in both (current position).

�� Full devolution to local levels, with responsibility for self-sufficiency in

management (potential next stage).

This is a trajectory of localisation in natural resource management which is

analytically important for its extended time-frame and the dynamics of its

evolution, yielding useful lessons for other initiatives, both negative and

positive. As an indicator case study, it is important that the project receive

continued support to move into the fourth stage above, the transformation from

a project to a self-sufficient, institutionalised system of localised natural

resource governance.

5.2 From an analytic and “best practice” perspective MBOMIPA is thus an important case

study which needs to be considered in the further evolution of Tanzanian policy, as

the WD has observed (paragraph 3.7.1). In this process it should be compared with

other important CC initiatives in Tanzania and a forum for this kind of comparative

“think tank” analysis at the national level is important for the evolution of Tanzanian

policy on the basis of sound applied science and experience.

5.3 Another reason for such a forum is its potential to integrate project and programme

approaches across the multiplex spectrum of CC projects in Tanzania, something

which the “4C” forum developed by TANAPA for its community outreach

programmes has proved effective. A possible problem with this kind of arrangement

is that it can become solely problem orientated and episodic. It can also become an

abstract “talk shop” with little relevance to practical application. One way to avoid

this is to maintain a central focus in such a forum on the development of common

services. A good example of this would be the development of training courses in

conjunction with a local university, as discussed in paragraph 4.7.4.

23

5.4 The Wildlife Division has, of course, the main responsibility to provide the policy

analyses and co-ordination discussed above. It has a CBC unit, which may well be in

a position to manage these functions through present structures, or through others not

discussed here. What DFID (and other donors) need to be prepared to do is to assist

the WD to ensure that these functions are carried out in whatever form is most

efficient and effective. DFID should also ensure that the MBOMIPA case study, with

its polyvalent salience, is facilitated in its momentum to its fourth stage indicated in

paragraph 5.1.2.

6. Project Continuance, Requirements and Exit

6.1 Over-all, the findings of this report are that the Project, in terms of its stated outputs,

has made good progress and is on schedule. The report suggests also, however, that in

terms of Project purpose, and more importantly its transition to a fourth phase of full

devolution (paragraphs 2.5, 4.1 & 4.6.1) much remains to be done in terms of

structural development, realising full economic benefit from natural resources, and

training and capacity enhancement. It is only when these are satisfactorily addressed

that the project will have evolved to a self-sufficient system of sustainable natural

resource use and management and fully realise its potential to be an exemplar case

study. The strategy suggested is one of short and medium term significant

investments in technical development, training and capacity enhancement, paralleled

by a phased withdrawal from authority and responsibility for recurrent costs at local

levels.

6.2 The execution of the components of this strategy requires a pace that is deliberate and

timed without being hasty and precipitate. It cannot be properly done within the

current life-span of the project (to October, 2001) and I recommend that a decision be

made in the near future to give it a three-year extension to October 2004. This would

then permit the development of a revised and more detailed log-frame before the end

of this year accommodating the implementational details of the recommendations of

this report. In effect this planning would be a strategy both for further interim project

development and for its timed exit.

6.3 I was not asked to consider budgetary issues and have no detailed knowledge of

current budgetary status, although I was given to understand that the project is

currently under-expended. The implication of the strategy suggested is that the

24

project should increase expenditure significantly on technical consultancies during

2000 and on training and capacity building during 2000-2003 (assuming the

recommended extension). Phased withdrawal of local responsibilities over the period

2001-2004 should allow a gradual decline in project office budget, accelerating in

2003-2004.

M. W. Murphree

16/3/2000

25

Annex A

Draft Terms of Reference for Professor Marshall Murphree, Review of Government of Tanzania/DFID MBOMIPA Project, 1-11 March 2000

These are draft terms of reference which should be finalised between Professor Murphree and the DFID Natural Resources Adviser on the former’s arrival in Tanzania.

The consultant (Professor Murphree) will:

1. Review basic project documentation provided before the mission and on arrival in Tanzania provided by the DFID NR Adviser.

2. Undertake, on arrival, a mission briefing with the NR Adviser and any other relevant and available DFID in-country advisers.

3. Visit the MBOMIPA project (office and field sites to be agreed with the MBOMIPA team), with the DFID Social Development Adviser in Tanzania, and review progress to date by project output.

4. Provide critical technical (Community Based NR Management) appraisal of the project’s attempts to fulfil its stated purpose, identifying:

�� Key achievements and lessons

�� Key problems/bottlenecks, especially with regard to future sustainability

�� Potential (if any) opportunities for scaling up or replicating project activities or lessons

5. Use comments by the DFID Economist, Governance and Social development Advisers.

6. Provide critical comments about the range of benefits accruing to the local communities and to the wider system in Tanzania.

7. Make any necessary follow-up visits to relevant stakeholders in Dar es Salaam (Arusha will also be relevant here but timeframe too tight to incorporate a visit)

8. Provide preliminary comments and observations about MBOMIPA wider policy and operational environment which might assist DFID in planning any possible future support to CBNRM/CBC, including further support to the work being undertaken by MBOMIPA.

9. Submit a draft report on the visit’s findings to the DFID NR Advisor prior to departure from Tanzania.

DFIDEA (T)

1 March 2000

26

Annex B Schedule of Meetings and Activities Wednesday. March 1 Travel from Harare/Dar es Salaam, arrival 21:30. Thursday, March 2 07:00 Meeting with DFID Natural Resources Officer.

09:30 Travel by air, Dar es Salaam/Iringa p.m. Meeting with MBOMIPA project staff

Friday, March 3 a.m. Meeting with DNRO Meetings with MBOMIPA staff.

p.m. Meetings with MBOMIPA staff. Review of Project document

Saturday, March 4 a.m. Village meeting, Idodi

p.m. Village meeting, Malinzunga Sunday, March 5 a.m. Village meeting, Ilolo Mpya

p.m. Village meeting, Itunundu Monday, March 6 a.m. Meeting with Community Conservation Warden,

Ruaha National Park.

a.m. Meeting with District Administration Secretary, Iringa.

a.m. Meeting with District Manpower Management Officer, District Council Offices.

p.m. Wrap-up meeting with MBOMIPA Project staff. Tuesday, March 7 Travel by road, Iringa/Dar es Salaam.

p.m. Meeting with DFID Natural Resources Advisor. Wednesday, March 8 a.m. Meeting with Principal Game Officer and Co-

ordinator of Programmes, WD.

p.m. Write-up. Thursday, March 9 a.m. Write-up

p.m. Meeting with DFID staff: Jon Salmon, Natural Resources Advisor; Steven Lee, Country Economist; Alana Albee, Social Development Advisor; and Daniel Davis, Governance Advisor.

Friday, March 10 a.m. Write-up

p.m. Write-up, meeting with DFID Natural Resource Advisor.

27

Saturday, March 11 Travel from Dar es Salaam/Harare

28

Annex C

COMPOSITION OF MBOMIPA PROJECT

STEERING COMMITTEE

1. Iringa District Commissioner - Chairman

2. MBOMIPA Project Manager - Secretary

3. District Executive Director - Member

4. District Natural Resource Officer - Member

5. District Community Development Officer - Member

6. Ruaha Conservation Group - Member

7 Ward Councillor – Idodi - Member

8. Ward Councillor – Mahuninga - Member

9. Ward Councillor – Itunundu - Member

10. Ward Councillor – Ilolo - Member

11. Ward Councillor – Mlowa - Member

12. MBOMIPA Community Conservation Officer - Member

13. MBOMIPA Field Manager - Member

14. MBOMIPA Community Development Adviser - Member

15. Chairman, Hunters Association of Tanzania (Iringa Branch) - Member

16. Director, HIMWA (NGO dealing with nomadic pastoralists) - Member

17. Principal Park Warden, Ruaha National Park - Member

18. Chief Technical Adviser (DANIDA) HIMA Project - Member

29

Annex D

MBOMIPA - LUNDU-MKWAMBI SOUTH

Income from Hunting Blocks, 1996-1999

INCOME FROM EACH HUNTING BLOCK – TShs. (excluding license fees) 1996-1999 Village / HUNTING BLOCK 1996 - TShs. 1997 - TShs. 1998 - TShs. 1999 - TShs.Kijiji / ENEO LA UWINDAJI

Isele 194,200.00 600,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00Kisanga 374,500.00 600,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00PAWAGA 568,700.00 1,200,000.00 2,651,000.00 3,000,000.00Malinzanga 854,860.00 1,250,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00Mafuluto 774,860.00 1,250,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00LUNDA 1,629,720.00 2,500,000.00 2,651,000.00 3,000,000.00Idodi 388,500.00 600,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00Mapogoro 273,000.00 600,000.00 1,325,500.00 1,500,000.00KITISI 661,500.00 1,200,000.00 2,651,000.00 3,000,000.00Tungamalenga 281,233.00 400,000.00 883,666.00 1,000,000.00Makifu 281,233.00 400,000.00 883,666.00 1,000,000.00Mahuninga 281,233.00 400,000.00 883,666.00 1,000,000.00MKUPULE VIJIJI 843,699.00 1,200,000.00 2,650,998.00 3,000,000.00SUB-TOTAL 3,703,619.00 6,100,000.00 10,603,998.00 12,000,000.00JUMLA NDOGOMKUPULE WILAYA 1,402,100.00 2,100,000.00 2,700,000.00 3,000,000.00TOTAL - JUMLA KUU 5,105,719.00 8,200,000.00 13,303,998.00 15,000,000.00

SOURCE: MBOMIPA Project, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM

30

Annex E

Documents Consulted and References Cited

DFID, Dar es Salaam (1998-1999) Monitoring reports on MBOMIPA Project, March

1998, Nov. 1998, Sept. 1999.

DFID (1999) Tanzania Country Strategy. London: DFID.

DFID, Dar es Salaam (2000) - Draft Terms of Reference for Output to Purpose Review

for the MBOMIPA Project 7-11 February 2000. - Preliminary Feedback Comments from Review Team

members.

Hartley, D. (1997) Community Wildlife Management: A Review of the ODA’s Experience in Tanzania. Report to ODA, London.

HMSO, United Kingdom Govt. (1997) Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century. White Paper on International Development. London: HMSO.

Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (1998) The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania.

Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (1998) Policy Paper on Local Government Reform

MBOMIPA Project (1998) Notes for MBOMIPA Project Visitors. Iringa, MBOMIPA Project.

MBOMIPA Project (1999) Participatory Land Use Planning Reports:

MVRI 1 MAFULUTO

MVRI 2 MBOLIBOLI

MVRI 3 ISELE

MVRI 4 KISANGA

MVRI 5 MAHUNINGA

MVRI 6 MAKIFU

MVRI 7 ITUNUNDU

MVRI 8 KIMANDE

MVRI 9 ILOLO MPYA

MVRI 10 MAKONBILENGA

MVRI 11 TUNGAMALENGA

MVRI 12 MALINZANGA

MVRI 13 LUGANGA

31

MBOMIPA Project (1999) MBOMIPA Project: Work Programme, 2000 +. MBOMIPA Project Office, Iringa.

MBOMIPA Project (2000) “Proposed Revision of the MBOMIPA Project Logical Framework.” Iringa, MBOMIPA Project.

MBOMIPA Project (2000) Key Issues for the MBOMIPA Project. Report No. MMN3.

MBOMIPA Project Office: Files and various reports and papers, 1998-2000.

Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment, Tanzania. Department of Wildlife (1997) Project for the Sustainable Use of Wildlife Resources in Idodi and Pawaga. (Project Document, MBOMIPA)

Murphree, M.W. (2000) “Community Conservation and Private Business: A Case Study of Mahenye, Zimbabwe,” in: D. Hulme and M. Murphree, (Eds.) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford: James Currey (forthcoming.)

REWMP (1996) A Strategy for Transition Between REWMP and MBOMIPA. Dar es Salaam: REWMP.

Shivji, I.G. and C.M. Peter (1999) The Village Democracy Initiative: A Review of the Legal and Institutional Framework of Governance at Sub-District Level in the Context of Local Government Reform Programme. Dar es Salaam: The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Walsh, M. (1995) The Potential for Community Management of Wildlife Resources in the Lundu-Mkwambi Game Control Area Bordering Ruaha National Park, Southern Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: ODA.

Wiley, L. (1997) An Appraisal of the Draft Land Bill (1996) for the Land Act of Tanzania. Nairobi: BDDEA.