Tanzania

EVALUATION REPORT OF PROLINNOVA – TANZANIA [2005 – 2007].

For Further information contact:

The Country Coordinator

PELUM-Tanzania

P O Box 54

Dodoma- Tanzania

Tel/Phax +255 26 2350744

E-mail:

March 2008

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

List of abbreviations and acronyms:

Executive summary

CHAPTER ONE:

1. BACKGROUND

1.1Back ground information of PELUM Tanzania

1.2Background on PROLINNOVA – Tanzania

1.2.1Specific objectives of this project

1.3Objectives of the Evaluation

1.4Evaluation Approach and Methodology

1.5Structure of the Report

CHAPTER TWO:

2.Project components, systems and Procedures.

2.1Introduction

2.2The project overall and specific objectives

2.2.1 Overall objectives

2.2.2 Specific objectives

2.3Assets and facilities

2.4Structure of Prolinnova – Tanzania Programme

2.5Project planning process

2.6Project implementation strategy

2.7Monitoring and evaluation

2.8Project beneficiaries

CHAPTER THREE

3.Project implementation per objectives and associated achievements

3.1Introduction

3.2Capacity building.

3.3Documentation, communication and dissemination of best practices

3.4Facilitating networking to strengthen partnerships and experience sharing

3.5Protection of Genetic resources:

CHAPTER FOUR:

4.Evaluation judgements

4.1Introduction

4.2Project preparation and development.

4.3Project Implementation progress

4.4External Relations

4.5Relevance

4.6Efficiency

4.7Effectiveness

4.8Project Impact

4.8.1Positive outcomes

4.8.2Unforeseen negative outcomes:

4.9Sustainability

4.10Change of mindset:

4.10.1Best Practices for Replication

CHAPTER FIVE:

5.Conclusions and recommendations

5.1Recommendations

5.2Conclusions

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:Terms of Reference:

Appendix 2:List of documents consulted:

Appendix 3:List of people /partners met:

List of abbreviations and acronyms:

ARIAgricultural Research Institute

ADP – MboziAction for Development Programme

ASDPAgriculture Sector Development Programme.

DADPsDistrict Agricultural Development Programmes.

IADOIsangati Agricultural Development Organisation.

ICEInstitute of Continuing Education.

IFTzINADES Formation – Tanzania.

IRDOIleje Rural Development Organisation.

ISWCIndigenous Soil and Water Conservation.

LRCLivestock Research Centre

MoAFSMinistry of Agriculture Food security and Cooperatives.

MoUMemorandum of Understanding.

MVIWATAMtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania.

PELUMParticipatory Ecological Land Use Management.

PFIPromoting Farmer Innovations.

P PROLINNOVAPromoting Local Innovation.

PTDParticipatory Technology Development

SUASokoineUniversity of Agriculture.

UMADEPUluguru Mountains Agricultural Development Programme.

UMECPUluguru Mountain Environmental Conservation Project

ZARDFZonal Agricultural Research Development Fund.

ZIELUZonal Information Extension Liason Unit.

Executive summary

PROLINNOVA is an international initiative/programme spearheaded by NGOs to build a global learning and advocacy network on promoting local innovation in ecologically-oriented agriculture and natural resources management (NRM). The focus is on recognizing the dynamics of indigenous knowledge (IK) and learning how to strengthen the capacities of small scale farmers to adjust to changing conditions – to develop and adapt their own site-appropriate systems and institutions of resource management in order to gain food security, sustain their livelihoods and safeguard the environment.

The project was implemented for three years [2005 – 2007]. As the project phased out in December 2007, PROLINNOVA – Tanzania assigned the consultant to conduct an end of project evaluation in order to assess its relevance, outcomes/impacts and give recommendations for future interventions.

Specific objectives of evaluation included:

On achieving objectives:

  1. To assess to what extent Prolinnova Tanzania partners have achieved the programme objectives as formulated for the period ending by December 2007. (at country and partners level) What were the main reasons for the achievements realized or failure behind non-achievements? Try to relate this assessment with the following activities:

-Capacity building of farmers and development practitioners from partner organization in Participatory Innovation Development approaches

-Capacity building for development practitioners on farmer led and participatory documentation methodologies

-Identification and documentation of local innovations for experience sharing and scaling up

-Implementation of PID at organizational level through own daily activities

-Influencing government policies to create favourable environment for farmer centred processes and participatory approaches that recognize local innovation systems and PID approaches

-Institutionalization of PID and farmer centred approaches into research, extension, education and development institutions

-Establishing and strengthening effective multi-stakeholder collaboration for successful implementation of the programme

  1. To assess to what extent those project objectives are still relevant for the period 2008-2010. (all levels and all aspects)

On implementation of programme and activities:

  1. To assess to what extent individual activities planned have been successfully implemented. What are reasons for successful implementation or failure for the non-implementation? (organizational and country level)
  1. To assess in what concerns partnership building and programme management, bringing stakeholders together, coordination, sharing of tasks and responsibilities, what worked well and what were the challenges and limitations? What factors hindered or supported your efforts? (Prolinnova country programme, organizational level and farmer level.)
  1. To assess to what extent M&E has become part and parcel the programme? Have they provided enough technical support needed for better success? What processes and tools you think can be more useful for proper M&E of the programme?
  1. To assess to what extent programme resources have been utilized. Did partners benefited from these resources and in which way? Did partners contributed to the programme to strengthen local innovation funds? (Outsourcing from within for the programme).

On recommendations:

  1. To recommend appropriate measures for improvement of programme implementation a/o based on partners views and suggestions.
  1. To recommend best mixture of activities for the new period starting by 2008 if we are aiming to be more successful. Which activities should be given more priority and why, a/o based on partners views and suggestions (also in view of the possibly modified objectives)?
  2. To give recommendations on the composition of Prolinnova Tanzania’ partnership, members of coordination group and National steering committee (NSC), a/o based on partners comments

During the evaluation exercise, the consultant was able to explore information from 13 out of 22 partner organizations including INADES – Formation Tanzania, UMADEP, MWAKAUMU, TAGRODE, IRDO, IADO, ADP – Mbozi, ARI/LRC Uyole, SAIPRO, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives, SHILDA, Rungwe district and Prolinnova – Tanzania coordination office within PELUM Tanzania.

Findings:

  1. Major findings about the project:
  • During conceptualisation of the project, limited participation of partners was noted, especially in designing and proposal development. The project designing and development picked up some experiences in the southern highlands and Dodoma where ISWC [IADO + IRDO + ADP – Mbozi] and PFI [IFTz] projects were executed. After the project inception appreciable participation of partners in programme activities was noted. Either, there have been periodical reviews of project conduct in the stake holder’s forums and national steering and advisory committee meetings.
  • M&E on some of the innovations at partner’s level has been very effective as this has been part and parcel of the programmes and projects in place. The follow up, monitoring and evaluation for Prolinnova interventions were not formalized or systematic enough at national level.
  • The programme managed to work very well with the three major categories of beneficiaries during its lifetime i.e. farmers, extension and researchers as core partners. .By the time of this exercise, PROLINNOVA – Tanzania has registered a total of 22 partners countrywide.
  • During the implementation of Prolinnova – Tanzania project, the work done by the project to capacitate its partners on PID/PTD concepts and participatory approaches is significantly appreciated by the consultant as well as the beneficiaries on the ground. Despite its delays {for various reasons} especially in 2005, the project realised an average 93% realisation of the forecasted activities.
  • It was learnt that, prior to documentation work, partners needed a lot of time to conceptualise on PID/PTD and other participatory approaches. This varying understanding of the concept and practises has contributed to limited contributions in the documentation activities.
  • It was noted that, partners were at varying levels/stages of conceptualisation and practise/conduct of innovations support to farmers in the focus of PID/PTD [this was partly attributed by partners joining the project at different times and stages of project implementation – while some were experienced in supporting the innovations [especially those under ISWIC and PFI], others were at identification stages of innovations in their constituents..
  • Thus, organising farmer innovators into sustainable groups and local networks as addressed in objective three was not done. It was revealed that partners who participated into the first stakeholders’ workshop (Kibaha)advised that since there is a national farmer organ – MVIWATA, (The national network for small scale farmer groups in Tanzania), there was no need for establishing a national network for innovator farmers.
  • PROLINNOVA – Tanzania has facilitated networking and collaboration quite well among public and private institutions and organisations working under umbrella of PELUM – Tanzania and outside the network including universities, research and training institutions, agriculture and livestock extension departments from Central and Local Government Authorities and Ministries dealing with agriculture, livestock, rural development and natural resources management issues.
  • The consultant in resonance with responses from partners/organisations consulted; found the project concepts/interventions being very relevant as it conforms to the country vision 2025, being supported by the some of government policies like: The National Environmental policy [1997], Natural Forestry Policy [1998];The Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper [PRSP]
  • Further, is addressing the issues relating to poverty reduction and improvement of the livelihoods of the rural communities. The implemented activities are addressing food security and income needs of rural communities.
  • In addition to that, the relevance is born on the fact that, it builds on and support continuation of the outcomes of two similar projects [ISWC and PFI], which have phased out.
  • It has been noted and claimed by most of the consulted partners that, during lifetime of the project, the National coordination unit has “centrally” assumed implementation role. This according to the partners consulted was contradictory to resolutions made in one of the stakeholders meeting at ICE – SUA Morogoro – that resources are allocated to partners who will in turn be required to implement the project activities.
  • It was also noted that, there were no formal agreements or MoUs signed between Prolinnova partners and coordination unit (national office) to clarify role (s) and responsibilities of the parties concerned in the project.
  • PROLINNOVA – Tanzania having limited resources [especially for supporting members interventions], has appreciably accomplished what was planned for in the three year plan.
  • On top of the physical outputs, the image of the Programme [the concept] has been promoted and accepted.

Recommendations

  • In drawing proposals, partners’ programmes should feed their action plans into the project i.e. the project plans should reflect partners’ priorities. This was however taken care along the project implementation process
  • If the Logical Framework is adopted during planning, a distinction should be made between impacts, outcomes, outputs and activities. In simple terms, “outcomes” is defined as “the result of outputs, which are the results of activities. The outcome should be formulated as one clear statement, which (if certain conditions hold) will lead to “impact”.
  • Mainstream gender aspects and concerns around innovations at all levels of the project e.g. in coordination team, identification of innovators, participation in the project events, partner representatives etc.
  • Coordination unit is advised to strategically “decentralise some” of obligations in the implementation and management of the programmes in future. That is, Partners or Organisations become the active implementers as they are the ones working directly with grassroots.
  • It is appreciated that, members are obliged to participate actively into Prolinnova programme activities. But, it may be a good practise to have formal agreements [MoU] between different parties which clearly stipulate the roles and responsibilities when it comes to result – oriented project/programme like Prolinnova – Tanzania.
  • Community entry: should give priority in inculcating the notion or spirit of promoting attitudinal change towards innovations that focus to enable communities overcome their livelihood challenges
  • Exchange visits though effective, should be organised based on the geographical considerations, mixture of innovations to be shared and keen selection of representatives [Number, experiences, activeness etc] Further, such exchange could better within certain constituent and after a period of time be shared outside.
  • Coordination office in collaboration with partners should take the responsibility of mobilising their own resources enough to enable member organisation facilitate Prolinnova activities with farmers on the ground. On the other hand, Prolinnova partner organizations should look for possibilities of mainstreaming Prolinnova activities into their work plans and respective budget. The project dealt mainly with change in approaches on how to carry out the partners’ routine activities.
  • Partners are advised to develop an entity that address Prolinnova and initiating move on mobilising resources around that, if it is not included in their current projects or programmes.
  • The project coordination and partners are advised to lobby through government development programmes for resource sharing in executing PID/PTD e.g. DADPs, ASDP, ZARDF etc.
  • In areas where there are potential innovations that are not within the constituents or within the programme in place, the national office may need to have a provision where support in terms of resources may be offered e.g. IADO – promoting Newcastle herbicinals; ADP – Mbozi – promoting traditional coffee processing unit.
  • In the next phase, the project is advised to open – up and strengthen the regional (East Africa) collaboration focusing on local innovations and practises taking aboard farmer – led concepts.
  • Given the meagre resources at both national and partner’s levels, it may be a good idea to concentrate on few areas where partners are actively engaged in promoting or supporting local innovations. Further to this there should be jointly agreed criteria for a partner to qualify being a member.
  • PROLINNOVA – Tanzania should also pursue possibilities to support to a certain extent services provided by other partners or national development programme [e.g. Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP), District Agriculture Development Plans (DADPs), and Zonal Agriculture Research Development Funds (ZARDF)]. This would ease pressure on the meagre resources of the organisation and ensure reaching more beneficiaries.
  • The capacity building interventions should take into considerations the needs, priorities and knowledge gaps in the partner organisations [with periodical review]; this will stimulate participation and contribute to observing outcomes at a later stage.
  • Prolinnova support towards protecting the intellectual rights of innovators should be an essential ingredient if the project goes into next phase [Lobbying and advocacy interventions]. To date, the government is silent on issues related to IPR.
  • Local promotion and dissemination of innovation could better precede national and international ones. This in view of some respondents would give time for the other arm [research] to validate the innovations for global consumption. Validation here does not imply halting the application of practises but the two can go simultaneously and in a participatory manner.
  • Documented practises/innovations should be written in user – friendly language, with clear recognition of the innovator. Further to this, farmers need to be considered as primary consumer of such documents.
  • Organise appreciation events – where people are invited to share, appraise and award the best performer – this can also be part of recognition and hence promoting ones confidence.
  • Initiate sort of “Competitive fund” [borrow the experience of ZARDF] to stimulate more documentation – the winner of the tender qualifies.
  • Having worked enough in building capacities of members and partners, enough time is required to work on the ground in order to realise the impact of Prolinnova.
  • Lobby for PID/PTD with respective departments in targeted ministries [probably the socio – economic wings], to get the concepts known, appreciated, accepted and forge the way to make it incorporated or integrated or being part of the government programmes.

The lobbying can well start at farmers’ level, village, district, national to international levels.

  • The links between Innovators, Extension, Researchers and policy makers should be strengthened building on the initiatives of this evaluated project. This in a way builds a platform for advocating actors interests around innovations.
  • The project is advised to consult MoAFC to learn on the experiences and the outcomes of the joint initiatives through LINKS between MoAFC and SUA on the guidelines development for documentation and breeders rights. This will as well feed into recommended interventions on protecting innovators’ rights.
  • The project can as well tap the opportunity of the currently established ZIELU for information sharing amongst various actors: farmers, researchers, extension, policy makers, CSOs etc.
  • To facilitate smooth M&E, the project needs to design a support and follow – up systems to all innovations that are outside partners’ constituencies.

Other suggestions are: all the project activities should be implemented in partner constituencies onlyfor easy follow up.

  • It was noted that no reflection or sharing after the training interventions. Post training/ exchange reflection sessions should be thought of, to allow partners share what achievements, constraints, new lessons and challenges have evolved.
  • While it is appreciated that, electronic communication is faster and may be cost effective, it is advised here that, physical follow ups should not be ignored. Some of partner are not accessing internet and in some areas the services are not reliable.
  • It is also advised to have mid – term evaluations come to have such a project. Such evaluations could lead to improvements in the project approach etc for the remainder of its period.
  • Forging and strengthening strategic alliances with like minded institutions for sharing skills, knowledge and other resources.
  • Partners should try to diversify funding sources to ensure future sustainability of the programme [include local resources: ASDP, DADPs, ZARDF]].

Conclusions: