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