Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project

Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity

in Lake Tanganyika (RAF/92/G32)

Socio-Economic Special Studies - Tanzania

PRIORITIES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC

RESEARCH AND ACTION IN TANZANIA:
A STRATEGIC APPROACH

Martin Walsh

Social Sciences Department

Natural Resources Institute
U.K.

Dar es Salaam

April 1997
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 2
Mtanga Village PRA 2
FPSS / SESS Research in Ujiji 4
Environmental Education 4
SESS Staff Availability 5
Draft SE / EE Workplan 6

Strategy 1:
CHANGING VILLAGERS’ PRACTICE 6

STRENGTHENING NGOs 7
Support for TACARE 7
Support for Other NGOs and CBOs 8
Institutional Support for the Fisheries Sector 9

PRA / ACTION RESEARCH 11

PRA in Kalilani Village 11
PRA in Rukwa Region 13

Strategy 2:
CHANGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICE 14

RESOURCING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 14

At District Level 15
At Village Level 16

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING WORKSHOP 16

Strategy 3:
DEVELOPING PROTECTED AREAS 17

COLLABORATION WITH TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS (TANAPA) 17

Planning for Aquatic Area Management in Gombe Stream National Park (GSNP)
17
Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Community Conservation Service (CCS) 18
Other Issues for Discussion 19

STRENGTHENING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT (SPAM) 19

SPAM Consultancy 19

ii
Protecting the Malagarasi Wetlands 21
Protected Areas at Village Level 21

Annex 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE 23

Annex 2
ACTIVITIES AND MEETINGS 25

Annex 3
PROVISIONAL WORKPLAN FOR DR. C. M. F. LWOGA, SESS
NATIONAL COORDINATOR (DESIGNATED) FOR TANZANIA, 27
1997-98

Annex 4
PROTECTED AREAS IN KIGOMA REGION AND DISTRICT 29

Annex 5
DRAFT TOR FOR CONSULTANCY ON STRENGTHENING
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT (SPAM) IN THE LAKE
TANGANYIKA CATCHMENT (TANZANIA) 34

Annex 6
REFERENCES 36

iii
 PRIORITIES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND
ACTION IN TANZANIA: A STRATEGIC APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

1. This report is based upon a one-week consultancy visit to Tanzania (6-12 April
1997) to follow up on planning for the Socio-Economic Special Studies (SESS)
component of the Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project (LTBP). The TOR for the
visit are reproduced in Annex 1 and a list of activities undertaken during the week are
tabulated in Annex 2.

2. The need to further define research and action priorities has become evident
following the completion of a participatory research exercise in Mtanga village,
adjacent to Gombe Stream National Park (GSNP). This report attempts to set these
priorities in their wider strategic context. Three broad strategies are outlined:

Strategy 1: changing villagers’ practice, i.e. helping villagers to adopt more

sustainable forms of natural resource utilisation in Lake Tanganyika and its
catchment;

Strategy 2: changing local government practice, i.e. helping local

government to facilitate and provide an enabling environment for Strategies 1
and 3;

Strategy 3: developing protected areas, i.e. helping both central and local
government to develop and manage protected areas in a way which is
consistent with Strategies 1 and 2.

3. As will become evident, these strategies are not mutually exclusive. They relate in
particular to two of the objectives of the proposed LTBP Strategic Action Plan
(MRAG 1997):

 to define and prioritise the management actions required to conserve the

biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika;

 to promote sustainable livelihoods for the lakeside communities of Lake

Tanganyika.

4. Particular attention is and should be paid to institutional factors, i.e. the ‘who’ and
‘how’ as well as the ‘what’. A large number of different institutions at different levels
have a stake in the sustainable management of Lake Tanganyika and its catchment,
and it is essential to define who should be responsible for different kinds of
management action and how these institutions should relate to one another. This
report, like previous SESS reports, highlights the potential role and importance of
local government institutions (from District level downwards) in Tanzania.

5. This report also emphasises the need to link questions of long-term environmental
sustainability with short-term economic viability as well as long-term economic
sustainability. Natural resource management must be resourced, and for LTBP to
have a lasting impact it must provide guidance on how such resourcing can be
developed and sustained beyond the lifetime of the project. At the same time,
villagers are unlikely to adopt more sustainable forms of resource utilisation if these
threaten their present livelihoods and do not offer better economic prospects in the
short-term than existing practices.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

6. This section summarises recent SESS activities and other developments relevant to
the strategies and proposed actions outline below.

Mtanga Village PRA

7. In mid-January a joint SESS-FPSS team conducted a PRA (action research

exercise) in Mtanga village, adjacent to GSNP. Fieldwork in Mtanga (6 days) was
preceded by training for the team (3 days) and followed by collective analysis of the
results (5 days). The outputs of this exercise to date have been as follows:

 an end of fieldwork report of principal observations and action points was

presented to and discussed with the village government and Ward Executive
Officer;

 a similar presentation was given to the Kigoma District Planning Office, followed
by a short written report which expanded upon these verbal presentations and
highlighted actions which could be taken by local government without external
assistance (e.g. actions to control domestic pollution and improve hygiene and
health within the village);

 papers on Ha ethnobotany and ethnozoology in Mtanga were prepared in the week

following fieldwork and distributed to TACARE and TANAPA (GSNP) (Walsh
1997a, 1997b, 1997c);

 copies of these and other fieldnotes were (or should have been, by now) deposited
in the LTBP office in Kigoma;

 a report of the Mtanga village PRA with recommendations was prepared by Dr. C.
M. F. Lwoga, National SE Coordinator (designate), in the month following the
exercise: this was revised to take account of comments by the PRA team leader
and is now ready for wider distribution (Lwoga (ed.) 1997);

2

 further data on FP in Mtanga were written up in the report of the FP team leader,
together with data from the subsequent PRAs in Zambia: this report was
completed in April (Petit (ed.) 1997).

8. A large amount of valuable information was collected during the exercise in

Mtanga. As might be expected there were some gaps which became evident during
the analysis and write-up: as researchers become more experienced it should be
possible to minimise these. The SE and FP components collaborated well throughout
the exercise despite some differences of approach which reflected their different
requirements in terms of data collection and analysis. In the field the FP team had to
programme their activities around those of the fishermen; while back in Kigoma they
required more time than was available to analyse and write-up the data which they had
collected (as the FP report indicates, some topics still remain to be written up by FP
team members). There was thus insufficient time for the whole team to discuss
recommendations relating to FP, and the last-minute call for the FP team leader to join
the PRA exercises in Zambia meant that writing-up was further delayed. Ideally the
FP data and recommendations included in the final FP report should have been
incorporated in the final report of the PRA.

9. Another difficulty experienced by the team was a general lack of interest and
cooperation on the part of the Mtanga village government, though some local leaders
and government employees were extremely helpful and enthusiastic. This was a
reflection of the nature of politics in Mtanga and the style of leadership adopted by the
dominant group, who might be described as ‘unprogressive’ (and were described as
such by some of their local opponents). For the most part they have been content to
‘let things go’, and the central village government is therefore institutionally
undeveloped (many committees were not functional) and generally resistant to
sponsoring development initiatives of any kind (TACARE’s work was one victim of
this, and prior to our exercise they were considering withdrawing from Mtanga). The
village leadership was, however, very active in receiving refugees from the conflict in
Zaire, and there is some suspicion that this relates to the possibilities of individual
enrichment which the refugee situation has created (not only now, but also during
earlier waves of immigration).

10. As a result it was not possible to follow the PRA process through to its ideal
conclusion, i.e. problem-solving and participatory planning with the community as a
whole. Reports from other lakeside communities (e.g. as experienced by TACARE
staff) indicate that some villages are considerably easier to work with, while others
pose similar problems to Mtanga. To some extent this is a problem which the District
authorities are best placed to tackle, by informing village governments of their
responsibilities and facilitating actions appropriate to these (e.g. ensuring that village
government institutions are operational, that local regulations are enacted and
enforced). It was for this reason that PRA team took early steps to present its
conclusions to the Kigoma District Planning Office. Prior to the PRA the District
Executive Director (DED) had remarked that one of the District’s recurrent problems
was period outbreaks of cholera in the lakeside villages. Domestic pollution and the
failure of villages like Mtanga to control it are the most obvious cause of this problem.

3
There is no excuse for the Mtanga village government to have ignored this problem,
while some of its neighbours (including one its own sub-villages, Kazinga) have
already taken appropriate steps to improve hygiene.

11. When a PRA in the vicinity of GSNP was first proposed, it was assumed that this
would lead straight into pilot actions at village level. The Mtanga experience raises
questions about this approach, as does the need to balance LTBP resources against
project objectives and an assessment of what it can hope to achieve in the time
available. There may be a case for developing initiatives at village level in order to
test and demonstrate their viability and train project partners in the process.
Otherwise it is arguable that project resources can best be spent by targetting
intermediate-level managers, including the District authorities and the NGOs who are
already working (or who might work) on programmes consistent with project
objectives. In this report it is argued that the latter is by far the most sensible strategy
for LTBP to adopt, combined with the existing emphasis upon developing the capacity
of national and international institutions concerned with the management of Lake
Tanganyika and its catchment. Actions at individual village level should only be
proposed when it is clear that they serve wider project objectives and / or show good
promise of wider replicability. This does not apply, of course, to actions taken by
other agencies, whether guided by the project or not. The principal task of LTBP is to
develop the capacity of other institutions to identify and manage threats to
biodiversity, not to undertake this management itself.

FPSS / SESS Research in Ujiji

12. In February, following completion of the Mtanga PRA and the departure of the FP
and SE team leaders, the FP team based in TAFIRI continued research in Ujiji,
assisted by Beatrice Marwa (SE/EE counterpart in Kigoma) providing SE inputs. At
the time of this consultancy two reports on this activity were in preparation, one by
Melchior Kissaka (FP) and one by Beatrice Marwa (SE).

Environmental Education

13. The Mtanga PRA suffered from the absence of Laisha Said (NEMC), who had
been earlier designated as the project’s National Environmental Education (EE)
Coordinator. The lack of an EE specialist affected the capacity of the team to address
EE issues, and also left the National SE Coordinator (designate) to write the PRA
report on his own (the original intention was that it should be jointly written by the
two designated National Coordinators).

14. Following Laisha Said’s last-minute withdrawal and her own statement of the
reasons for this, it was assumed that the project would have to seek a new National EE
Coordinator. However, a meeting with NEMC’s Senior Environment Information
Officer, Anna Maembe, during the present consultancy, revealed that NEMC were
unaware of Laisha Said’s withdrawal and that they still considered her to be assigned
to LTBP. In subsequent meetings Laisha Said expressed her willingness to continue
working as National EE Coordinator and the PCU accepted her back in good faith.
She subsequently joined Paul Vare, ICCE consultant, on his EE mission to Kigoma.
4
The report of this mission is eagerly awaited. EE issues will not be discussed in any
further detail in the present report. It is hoped, however, that Laisha Said will be
available to take part in other SESS activities planned for later in the year, and that the
Memorandum of Understanding currently being drawn up between LTBP and NEMC
will provide a satisfactory basis for ongoing partnership.

SESS Staff Availability

15. After a period of intensive activity in the second half of 1996 and the first quarter
of this year, a conjunction of events has conspired (albeit happily for the persons
concerned) to reduce staff inputs to SESS work in Tanzania. Dr. Lwoga, the National
SE Coordinator (designate) will be preoccupied with establishing his Dar-based NGO
until late June, and will not be able to devote significant amounts of time to LTBP
until July. This reallocation of Dr. Lwoga’s time could not be avoided, but was
inevitable once start-up funds for the NGO were released. From July onwards,
however, he should be able to resume regular inputs to LTBP. A provisional
workplan for Dr. Lwoga has been drawn up which takes account of this fact (see
Annex 3). This should be discussed and agreed with him, and modified further as
events demand.

16. Beatrice Marwa, SE/EE counterpart in Kigoma, is currently on maternity leave,

and it is not known when she will be able to resume her own valuable inputs to LTBP.
Later in the year she is due to attend an ICCE training course in the U.K. (dates to be
confirmed), and this will further affect her availability. By this time, however, Dr.
Lwoga should be back with LTBP, and working alongside Laisha Said as originally
intended. Contracts with both Beatrice Marwa and Dr. Lwoga remain to be finalised,
and both of them have expressed (different) concerns about the terms of their
employment and remuneration for their work (past, present and proposed). It is hoped
that these issues can be settled satisfactorily with the PCU and contracts signed:
otherwise there will remain some uncertainty about their future availability.

17. The author of this report may also not be available to provide further inputs to
SESS and LTBP: indeed, as originally planned, the input to the Mtanga PRA and its
write-up was to have been my last. Ideally the National SE and EE Coordinators
should be managing most SESS activities on the ground in Tanzania and drawing up
their own workplans in coordination with the PCU in Dar and SLO in Kigoma and
with occasional supervisory / advisory inputs from the SESS lead in NRI. Although
this has not happened yet, it should still be aimed for, and hopefully attained in the
second half of this year. The need for further external consultancy inputs should be
carefully considered: ideally (again) these should be kept to a minimum, both in view
of the limited resources available to SESS and the need to develop in-country capacity
and enhance the sustainability of project activities. There is, however, considerable
scope for local consultancy inputs (which is what, in effect, Dr. Lwoga has been
providing to date, at a price far below the going market rate). One input in particular,
for a proposed consultancy on Strengthening Protected Area Management (SPAM), is
detailed in this report.

5
18. In general it might be noted that SESS inputs suffer from the lack of a permanent
presence (in the form of at least one senior advisor) by Lake Tanganyika, and are
likely to continue to suffer in this way. The planning and monitoring of activities is
difficult at a distance, and poor transport links between Dar and Kigoma and between
Kigoma and other sites on the lake entail that little can be achieved in short visits. For
SE and EE inputs to be effective it may be necessary for the National Coordinators to
spend long periods based in and travelling out of Kigoma. However, it is not certain
that the proposed ‘half-time’ arrangements (whereby the Coordinators will work an
average of half their time for the project) are sufficient to cover the demand for their
services, especially when they also have other tasks to perform for the project in Dar
es Salaam. The capacity for the Coordinators to work effectively under such an
arrangement should be closely examined, and alternative working arrangements
explored if it seems that the quality of inputs will thereby be compromised.

Draft SE / EE Workplan

18. The LTBP SE/EE Component: Socio-Economics Draft Workplan, prepared by

Julian Quan in NRI, was received by this consultant after his visit to Dar es Salaam. It
was therefore not possible to discuss it with Dr. Lwoga and others in Tanzania. This
was unfortunate, given that it makes a number of new proposals, while the priorities
listed do not entirely accord with those set out in this report or the recommendations
of the PRA report. Priorities for research and action should obviously emerge from as
full a consultative process as possible. The overlapping and uncoordinated timing of
current SE and EE planning inputs (this report, the Draft SE/EE Workplan, and the
forthcoming ICCE/EE mission report) makes this awkward, and more work will be
needed to draw the different proposals together. A coordinated meeting of all of the
SE/EE principals in Tanzania, as suggested in the PRA report (replacing the original
plan for a post-PRA workshop), would have been ideal, but the conflicting obligations
of the different persons involved appear to have ruled this out for the time being.

strategy 1:
CHANGING VILLAGERS’ PRACTICE
19. A number of proposed project actions are directed at changing villagers’ practice,
or rather at helping villagers to do so. This means both (a) discouraging practices
which are identified as threats to biodiversity, and (b) encouraging the development of
alternative practices which provide a more sustainable basis for the utilisation of the
resources of Lake Tanganyika and its catchment and therefore more sustainable
livelihoods for the people who are dependent upon these resources. While the project
has already identified a number of threats to biodiversity (listed in the Preliminary
Strategic Action Plan, MRAG 1997), the different scientific Special Studies have yet
to prioritise these, let alone define appropriate management actions. It is widely
recognised that more research is needed before this can be done effectively.

20. Meanwhile, SESS is already in a position to suggest some management strategies,

based upon its own research and working hypotheses about the principal threats to
6
biodiversity and the economic opportunities available to people living around the lake.
Changing villagers’ practice is undoubtedly the most difficult challenge facing the
project and its successors. It is generally the case that villagers do not act to control
environmental damage until it has a marked impact upon their personal incomes and
livelihoods, by which time the damage done may be irreversible. In such
circumstances it is rarely sufficient simply to educate people about the consequences
of their actions (as the behaviour of commercial fishing operations worldwide
indicates), but necessary to combine EE with both regulation and incentives (e.g. in
the form of economically viable alternatives) to change practice. Getting the balance
right between these different measures will not be easy.

STRENGTHENING NGOs

21. The most active, and in some cases the most effective, agencies in changing
villagers’ practice are NGOs and CBOs. As well as plugging a gap which is not filled
by resource-poor local govenment departments, they may also play a positive role in
developing the capacity of these. In cases where NGOs and CBOs are already
working to control threats identified by LTBP and develop viable alternatives, then it
makes obvious sense for the project to support their work. The project should also
consider taking a proactive role in (a) attracting ‘proven’ NGOs to the project area; (b)
encouraging the formation of local NGOs and CBOs which match its concerns; and
(c) encouraging existing NGOs and CBOs to develop programmes which are linked to
these.

Support for TACARE

22. LTBP and in particular SESS has already developed close links with TACARE,
and a TACARE staff member joined the Mtanga PRA team. TACARE (Lake
Tanganyika Catchment Reforestation and Education) is already working in a series of
lakeside communities in Kigoma District, developing a programme which aims “to
support villagers in arresting the rapid degradation of their land and to show ways of
sustainable land use”, and to “produce fruit- and tree-seedlings in the villages, to train
villagers in tree planting, contour farming and the benefits of conserving natural
forests”. More recently TACARE has also begun to look at health issues. As an
NGO established by The Jane Goodall Institute, it also has close links with the Gombe
Research Centre, and the wider EE programme, ROOTS and SHOOTS (for further
information on TACARE and its work see Walsh 1996a).

23. TACARE’s work is directly relevant to project objectives. It is promoting actions

which are intended both to (a) reduce land degradation and therefore sedimentation
along the lake shore; and (b) lead to the adoption of sustainable agroforestry practices
which will provide new income generating opportunities in the lakeside villages.
During the planning and implementation of the Mtanga PRA it was evident that
TACARE already had a good knowledge of the problems facing and opportunities
available to this and other lakeside communities in which it has worked. One of the
PRA’s instant outputs, A Preliminary Glossary of Ha Plant Names (Walsh 1997a),

7
was prepared with the needs of TACARE in mind, as a guide to help field staff
identify indigenous tree species. There is no doubt that TACARE’s work deserves
more tangible inputs from LTBP: the time is ripe for the project “to put its money
where its mouth is” and support the development of TACARE’s programmes. The
following specific actions are recommended:

 LTBP (SESS) to discuss with TACARE management ways in which they can
collaborate and, more specifically, ways in which LTBP can help to resource
TACARE’s programmes. It is understood that Paul Vare (ICCE) will discuss
possible collaborative ventures with TACARE during his current EE mission to
Kigoma. There is, however, a need to look at more than just EE initiatives, and to
generate proposals for the funding of TACARE activities in general. Discussion of
these issues requires the presence of senior SESS / LTBP staff (?Julian Quan, ?the
SLO) with a knowledge of the resources which LTBP can commit to TACARE
(previous consultants, including the writer of this report, have not been in
possession of this knowledge or the mandate to make financial proposals).

 LTBP to commit funds to TACARE on the basis of these discussions. It is

important that LTBP reaches an early decision about the form of an agreement with
TACARE, the mechanism by which funds will be transferred, and other related
matters. Support to TACARE will function as a trial run for providing similar
kinds of assistance to other NGOs, if this assistance is deemed appropriate. It is
essential that the relevant practicalities are sorted out at an early stage: protracted
negotiation and / or delayed decision-making will damage LTBP’s reputation in the
eyes of TACARE and other organisations which it makes overtures to. It is also
important that LTBP respects TACARE’s capacity to define its own programmes
and the forms of assistance which it considers most appropriate. It is not unusual
for NGOs to be pulled in different directions by different donors with conflicting
agendas, the coherence and continuity of their programmes suffering as a result;
and LTBP should be careful not to create such a situation.

 LTBP to explore ways in which it can help raise the profile of TACARE’s work
and help it to attract support from other donors, if this support is deemed necessary
by TACARE management. This is a matter for the PCU and National SE and EE
Coordinators to pursue at national level once LTBP and TACARE have reached
agreement on the forms of their collaboration and the inputs which LTBP will
provide.

8
Support for Other NGOs and CBOs

24. SESS has already made preliminary contact with a number of other NGOs
working in Kigoma Region. These include COOPIBO (at national level) and
CARITAS (through the participation of Beatrice Marwa in their PRA programme)
(for details see Walsh 1996a and 1996b). COOPIBO is working (through the
Development Office of the Anglican Church) in Kasulu District and CARITAS in
both Kasulu and Kibondo Districts. Both organisations are addressing problems of
environmental degradation and agricultural development, and their programmes are
relevant to LTBP objectives in similar ways to TACARE’s, in that they are tackling
the causes of sedimentation in the upper catchment and promoting more sustainable
forms of resource utilisation. Both NGOs have recently conducted PRAs in villages
in the upper catchment, and thus saved LTBP the trouble of extending its own PRA
programme into Kasulu and Kibondo Districts. The COOPIBO-sponsored PRAs in
particular led to the production of an excellent report (COOPIBO 1995), superior in
some respects to LTBP’s own initial products. COOPIBO have indicated that they are
available to do such research under contract: and this is an option which SESS should
consider.

25. To date, however, LTBP’s interaction with these organisations has been limited.
There is clearly scope for finding out more about their activities, as well as the
programmes of other NGOs and CBOs working in Kigoma Region, not to mention
other Regions in the lake catchment area, including Rukwa. The long term aim of this
fact-finding and increased interaction should be to explore the possibility of
developing collaborative ventures of the kind which are beginning to evolve between
LTBP and TACARE. The following actions are therefore recommended:

 the SE and EE National Coordinators (designate) to visit NGOs and CBOs working
in the project area, to establish local contact and exchange information on current
and proposed programmes. The two Coordinators should consult with one another
to consider how they might share (or share out) this work and build it into their
respective workplans.

 these visits should be preceded by visits to the relevant District offices, in order to
make appropriate contacts (in the case of Districts other than Kigoma) and obtain
an overview of NGO and CBO activities in each District.

 the two Coordinators should programme a joint visit to Sumbawanga and Rukwa
Region, both to make these District and NGO / CBO contacts, and to initiate
planning for the proposed PRA in that area. This may also require coordination
with the leader of the FP team, who will need to participate in this planning.

 one output of these visits should be a list of relevant offices, organisations,

personnel and principal activities. This list will form the basis for issuing
invitations to the planning workshop scheduled for November 1997 (see below).

9

 these visits and exchanges should also be used to assess the potential for future
collaboration with NGOs and CBOs other than TACARE. This should include
consideration of their potential role in the proposed studies of (a) priority degraded
catchments / management interventions, and (b) alternative income generation
opportunities (Quan 1997).

Institutional Support for the Fisheries Sector

26. There are currently no NGOs in Kigoma District which are working directly in
the fisheries sector (including fish processing and marketing). Meanwhile, interviews
with fishermen in Mtanga indicated a widespread lack of confidence in the new
fishermen’s cooperative established in Kigoma, in large part because of the failure of
such ventures in the past (see Lwoga (ed.) 1997 for details). The situation along the
Rukwa lake shore is unknown. The absence of effective NGOs / CBOs in the
fisheries sector, at least in Kigoma District, creates a problem for LTBP, given the
expectation that more interventions are required in this sector than any other. A
number of institutional options are therefore open to LTBP:

 to work through existing government agencies, i.e. through the Department of

Fisheries and TAFIRI, as appropriate.

 to explore the possibility of strengthening existing CBOs as an additional channel

for fisheries management.

 to generate NGO interest in the Lake Tanganyika fisheries and attract them to work
in this area: this might involve canvassing either NGOs with existing experience
of such work elswhere in the region or NGOs already working in the area but not in
the fisheries sector.

 to encourage the formation of local NGOs / CBOs with programmes linked to

LTBP objectives in this sector.

 to develop the appropriate programmes itself, with the help of government agencies
and perhaps with a view to later handing over this work to a voluntary agency or
agencies.

27. These options should be carefully considered by both SESS and FPSS, and might
also form a topic for discussion in the November planning workshop (see below),
when LTBP has a clearer idea of priorities for management action in the fisheries
sector.

28. The Socio-Economics Draft Workplan suggests “a feasibility study for artisanal
credit aimed at eliminating fishing gears known to be damaging and enhancing
opportunities for poor fishermen to exploit pelagic stocks sustainably” (Quan 1997).
It should be noted that the Mtanga PRA team gave low priority to the credit option:
recent past experience with fisheries credit indicated a number of difficulties (not least
being low rates of repayment), while it was thought unlikely that outside agencies -

10
including those operating credit schemes elsewhere in Tanzania - could be readily
attracted to the lake (Lwoga (ed.) 1997). The team considered that there was some
scope for existing local credit mechanisms to be utilised by fishermen, but this would
be unlikely to have widespread impact. One likely problem with credit specifically
for artisanal fisheries is that by enabling fishermen to upgrade their gear it may simply
accelerate overfishing of pelagic stocks: at present it is difficult to see how
conditionality (to promote sustainable fishing of pelagic stocks) could be built into a
credit programme.

29. If credit is to be considered as an option, then there is a good argument for not
limiting it to a particular kind of enterprise (i.e. artisanal fishing), but to let village
men and women make their own choices about the kinds of investment which they
make. This might, of course, include investment in land-based enterprises and
alternatives to fishing and fish processing. Such a scheme would perhaps be most
viable if operated by one of the organisations currently promoting ‘minimalist’ credit
elsewhere in Tanzania: though, as implied above, considerable lobbying might be
needed to attract them to work on the lake shore. An alternative would be to explore
the local demand for a savings scheme (the demand for such schemes in other parts of
East Africa has proved considerable), to which a credit component could then be
linked. The institution of such a scheme, however, may require resources which
LTBP alone cannot provide, and it would require some creativeness to link it with
environmental concerns.

PRA / ACTION RESEARCH

30. It is generally agreed that there is a need to conduct further action research along
the lake shore to follow up on the Mtanga PRA. An earlier proposal was to continue
focusing upon Kigoma District by undertaking research (a) on the lake shore adjacent
to Mahale Mountains National Park (MMNP), followed by (b) in the vicinity of the
Malagarasi Swamps. It is now suggested, however, that while the MMNP study
should go ahead, it should be followed by research on the lake shore of Rukwa
Region, and not in the vicinity of the Malagarasi. There are three main reasons for
this: (a) the need for FP data on the southern lake shore is more pressing than in the
case of the Malagarasi River and Swamps; (b) LTBP needs to establish its presence
and initiate activities in Rukwa Region; and (c) it is expected that some attention will
be paid to the Malagarasi Swamps in the proposed consultancy on Strengthening
Protected Area Management (SPAM) (see below).

PRA in Kalilani Village

31. Kalilani village, on the northern border of MMNP, has been selected as the site
for the next PRA for a number of reasons: (a) LTBP has no data on FP on this part of
the lake shore; (b) SE factors are expected to be somewhat different from those in
Mtanga: Kalilani is much further away from Kigoma and the ethnic composition of
the local community is different; (c) Kalilani is in Kigoma District and a PRA there
will enable LTBP to strengthen its exising partnership with the District authorities; (d)
it is adjacent to MMNP and will provide insights into problems and opportunities
11
relating to the aquatic extension of the park (to be compared and contrasted with the
experience of GNP). TANAPA officials at MMNP are very keen that LTBP should
conduct research in this area, and have requested LTBP assistance in drawing up an
inventory of species in the aquatic section of the park. The greatest difficulty which
SESS and FPSS are likely to face in organising a research exercise in Kalilani is
logistical, given the travelling distance from Kigoma.

32. The following actions are recommended, subject to coordination between SESS
and FPSS (and to a lesser extent BIOSS):

 the PRA should be conducted in July: the PRA team should assemble in Kigoma
in the first week of July; fieldwork should be conducted in the second week; and
collective analysis undertaken in the third week - more or less following the same
process as the Mtanga PRA.

 assuming that the FP team leader, Philippe Petit, returns to Kigoma in May or June,
then he should play the leading role in pre-planning the exercise: consulting, as
appropriate, with the Kigoma District Planning Office; ensuring, in advance, the
services of team participants; and visiting Kalilani and MMNP to make advance
preparations with the village government and TANAPA.

 prior to doing this the FP team leader should meet with the National SE and EE
Coordinators, Dr. Lwoga in particular, to agree on the exact timing of the exercise
and draw up a programme of the steps which need to be taken, and who will take
responsibility for each step. They should also review the budget for the exercise,
basing this upon the budget for the Mtanga PRA (subtracting field equipment
already purchased). The basis for this joint planning will be the Mtanga research
plan (Walsh and Lwoga 1996).

 the PCU should be informed well in advance of the funds required and these
should be remitted to the SLO in Kigoma so that the PRA team leaders can use
them as required. Overall responsibility for the use of funds and the actual conduct
of the exercise (training, fieldwork, and analysis) should be given to Dr. Lwoga.

 the composition of the PRA team should be as close as possible to that of the
Mtanga exercise, i.e. including

Dr. Lwoga, National SE Coordinator and PRA team leader

Laisha Said, National EE Coordinator

Hamza Mabochi, Community Development Officer, Kigoma District

Aristides Kashula, Forestry Officer, TACARE

Community Conservation Warden, MMNP, TANAPA

12
 Dr. Petit, FP Team Leader

Mambona wa Bazolana, Socio-economist, CRH (if available)

Melchior Kissaka, Fisheries Officer, TAFIRI

Omari Kashushu, Fisheries Officer, TAFIRI

Fisheries Assistant, Kalilani (if available)

 possible additions to the team include the TAFIRI socio-economist and/or the
Kigoma Region Cultural Officer, Mathias Lyapa. The latter, who is from Rukwa,
should be contacted in any event: a copy of his cv is with Keith Banister.

 FPSS and BIOSS should consult on the possibility of satsifying TANAPA’s

request for an inventory of aquatic species in MMNP during the period of the PRA.
Alternatively, the PRA may be used to develop a preliminary list of species in the
area (in particular those known by fishermen on the edge of the aquatic extension).

 the final report of the PRA should be prepared by Dr. Lwoga and Laisha Said in
Dar es Salaam by mid-August. Specialised inputs to this report from the FP team
should be provided as soon as possible after the end of the exercise (this did not
happen after the Mtanga PRA: the full results of which are therefore split between
different reports).

PRA in Rukwa Region

32. The location of the third action research exercise should follow the
recommendations of the FP team leader (for a preliminary list of suggestions see Petit
(ed.) 1997). The ideal time to conduct this exercise would be September, but this
depends on the availability of Dr. Lwoga, Laisha Said, and Dr. Petit, two or more of
whom would have to make the necessary contacts and arrangements in August. It is
proposed that:

 the National SE and EE Coordinators and FP team leader (if available) undertake a
joint mission to Sumbawanga and sites on the Rukwa coast in the second half of
August. During this mission Dr. Lwoga and Laisha Said would make appropriate
contacts at District level, including contact with NGOs and CBOs working in the
area, while Dr Petit would focus upon the selection of a fieldwork site.

 one output of this visit would be a detailed plan for a PRA along the Rukwa lake
shore. If this cannot be squeezed in before the proposed November planning
workshop, then it may have to be postponed until later in the year or early 1998.
However, if it is found that extensive research has already been undertaken by
NGOs / other agencies on the lake shore - and the results of this research are
available - then the mission may decide that a full PRA is not necessary, but that a
more topical (e.g. FP) investigation will suffice.

13

 a second output of this mission would be a list of institutions and personnel
working in the Rukwa portion of the lake catchment who might be invited to the
November planning meeting.

strategy 2:
CHANGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICE
33. Where other LTBP Special Studies have tended to place the emphasis upon
national research organisations, previous SESS reports have highlighted the
importance of local government institutions (from District level downwards) in
Tanzania. Local government is at the front line of natural resources and
environmental management, and if the project’s future Strategic Action Plan (SAP) is
to be implemented effectively in Tanzania then it is essential that capacity of local
government instititions in this regard is taken into account and, as far as possible,
strengthened. SESS has already begun to work in close partnership with the District
and other local authorities in Kigoma, where its work to date has been concentrated.
This partnership should be developed, and extended as soon as possible to other
Districts in the project area.

34. Local government at Regional and District levels is currently in the throes of
reform, a process involving some decentralisation of power and functions from the
former to the latter level. This process is by no means complete, and there is
considerable uncertainty as to what the end result might be, and whether the Regional
offices will be transformed to the extent which some reformers would advocate.
Nonetheless, the general trend is towards decentralisation, and the same trend can also
be discerned in other policies and legislation being prepared at national level: the
draft new Wildlife Policy of the Department of Wildlife in the Ministry of Tourism
and Natural Resources (MTNR) is one example. These are positive developments,
which have the potential to create a much better enabling framework for
environmental management. The problem, however, is how to translate this into
action, and this must be a central concern for LTBP as well as for the government
itself.

RESOURCING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

35. Environmental management has costs, and cannot be divorced from economic
questions. The development of strategies for resourcing environment management is
critical for its sustainable implementation. This is especially true at different levels of
local government, where there is little experience in environmental management and
even fewer ideas about how this might be resourced.

14
At District Level

36. One of the consequences of the trend towards decentralisation is that that District
Councils are being increasingly obliged to fund their own activities, including the
activities of the different departments which are responsible for different aspects of
environmental management (in particular the departments which fall under the
District Natural Resources offices). Many councils and departments are short of cash,
and their ability to facilitate environmental initiatives is thereby much diminished.
Field and extension activities are particularly affected: different departments have
few resources with which to pay for village visits and resource and extension activities
outside of District headquarters. As a result Districts tend to rely upon external
inputs, from donor-funded projects and NGOs, to enable them to undertake such
work. This means that their work tends to be sporadic in both time and place: where
there is no project then little gets done. Such dependence on external inputs is also
clearly unsustainable.

37. Districts do, however, have considerable potential to collect revenues - including
revenues from the utilisation of natural resources - which can be used to fund their
activities. The problem is that they have little experience in doing so, and that few if
any models of how to do so are available. SESS should explore ways in which this
problem can be addressed. The following actions are recommended:

 SESS staff to gather information on District Council funding and in particular the
revenues currently collected from natural resource utilisation (e.g. revenues from
licensing and the trading of fish); this can be done in the course of staff
interactions with senior council staff and department heads, who might also be
asked formally to furnish this information to LTBP. It is important, however, to
understand current practice, including problems and opportunities, in qualitative as
well as quantitative terms.

 research teams to pay particular attention to this question while undertaking future
PRAs.

 the proposed SPAM consultancy (see below) to pay particular attention to this
question in the context of PA management.

 national SESS staff (the SE and EE Coordinators) to gather ideas and information
on this question at national level; e.g. by asking about and noting down
experiences and models of environmental management resourcing elsewhere in
Tanzania.

 the resourcing of environmental management at District and village levels (see

below) to be a priority topic in the proposed November planning workshop.

15
At Village Level

38. The problem at village level is similar to that at District level, albeit on a different
scale. In Mtanga, for example, it struck the research team that while some fishermen
(not all of them local residents) were making a lot of money from fishing, the village
government made next to nothing from this activity. Natural resource utilisation can
and should be taxed, in order to provide disincentives to over-exploitation, incentives
to sustainable utilisation, and revenue with which village government can facilitate
good management and support environmental initiatives. This, of course, is easier
said than done, but no argument for ignoring the issue. Patterns of resource utilisation
are inextricably bound up with perceptions of economic advantage and disadvantage.
Districts, villages, and villagers themselves will not adopt or promote environmentally
sustainable practices with any vigour unless it is evident that they will gain
economically (in the short term) by doing so. SESS should therefore examine this
question at all levels of local government (for general recommendations, in which
village-level issues should also be understood as incorporated, see above).

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING WORKSHOP

39. It is proposed that SESS holds a participatory planning workshop in Kigoma in

November 1997 in which it will discuss the results of its work and proposals for
action with District officers, NGO representatives, and other key local stakeholder
institutions (e.g. TAFIRI). The primary participants in this workshop will be District
managers, i.e. heads of relevant departments from different Districts in the project
area. The workshop will function as a forum for generating and discussing ideas
about how LTBP might attain its objectives, and it will produce recommendations
both for action and for incorporation into the Strategic Action Plan. Key themes for
discussion and recommendation will include the question of fishing practices, PA
management, resourcing environmental management at District and village levels, EE
initiatives, and other topics raised in this report. It is suggested that the workshop
lasts for no more than 5 working days, and that it is held in a suitable venue in
Kigoma town before the 1997/78 rains start. The total number of participants,
including LTBP staff, should be no more than 30, and ideally around 25. The
following are recommendations for planning and organising this workshop:

 workshop planning and facilitation should primarily be the responsibility of the EE

component, with inputs from SE staff (e.g. on the list of participants, topics to be
discussed, the programme of the workshop, and providing additional facilitation).

 a decision should be made as soon as possible as to whether professional

facilitation will be required, i.e. using a consultant who is not currently associated
with the project. Good participatory facilitators are available in Dar es Salaam, but
at a price. An external facilitator will obviously have to be consulted at an early
stage about these recommendations.

16

 Julian Quan, Paul Vare, and Laisha Said should consult on this proposal as soon as
possible, so that a workshop budget can be drawn up and the requisite funds made
available on time.

 detailed planning of the workshop programme may take place in the month before
(i.e. October): invitations to participate, however, need to be sent out early; and
these invitations should include an outline programme (at least a list of topics to be
considered and an indication of the format) and information on the venue,
accommodation, and allowances to be provided (including reimbursement for
transport to the workshop).

 the basic methodology of the workshop should be participatory, e.g. making use of
working groups and other participatory tools.

 the principal output of the workshop should be ideas and actions, and not a lot of
paper. At the most a summary of workshop proceedings (i.e. typed up
presentations and recommendations) should be prepared and sent to participants,
and this may be facilitated by employing the SLO’s secretary as workshop
documentalist.

strategy 3:
DEVELOPING PROTECTED AREAS
40. While LTBP has recognised the potential importance of Protected Areas (PAs) in
developing a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the management of Lake Tanganyika
and its catchment, initiatives proposed to date in Tanzania have been largely
piecemeal and have almost exclusively related to the two National Parks (NPs) along
the lake shore, Gombe Stream (GSNP) and Mahale Mountains (MMNP). There is
clearly scope for approaching this issue more systematically, and also for considering
the role of other kinds of PA outside of the NP system. Although a network of PAs of
different kinds already exist in the Tanzanian portion of the catchment, they are
evidently not functioning as well as they might or fulfilling their potential to meet
some of LTBP’s objectives. The following sections consider how LTBP in general
and SESS in particular might pursue this question.

COLLABORATION WITH TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS (TANAPA)

41. To date LTBP has focused its attentions upon the two NPs (GSNP and MMNP)
managed by Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA). Most interactions between LTBP
and TANAPA have been at individual NP level. However, these have raised
questions which cannot be fully resolved at this level, without inputs from senior
TANAPA staff. Only brief contact has been made with TANAPA headquarters in
Arusha, during a quick visit by Ed Allison, BIOSS consultant, more than six months
ago. This visit and the requests / recommendations stemming from it have not been

17
followed up, and there is a pressing need for LTBP to formally introduce and discuss
its programme with national TANAPA staff, and to explore how their collaboration
might proceed. Particular issues for discussion include the following:

Planning for Aquatic Area Management in Gombe Stream National Park

(GSNP)

42. This should be a priority. It has been suggested, by the GSNP Chief Park Warden
among others, that GSNP should be extended into the lake and thereby have an
aquatic extension similar to that at MMNP. The intentions and proposals of
TANAPA HQ in this regard should be established. If it is the case that an irreversible
decision has already been taken to extend GSNP into the lake, then LTBP should
discuss with TANAPA what, if any, advice and assistance it might be able to provide.
If such a decision has not been taken, then there is considerable scope for LTBP to
assist TANAPA in formulating alternative, intermediate management options. Data
collected during the PRA in Mtanga indicated that the intensity of beach seining along
the GSNP shore is much greater than that in other areas (Petit 1997), and the PRA
team (which included the GSNP Community Conservation Warden) discussed various
ways in which fishing off the park might be better managed (Lwoga (ed.) 1997). It
was proposed that LTBP and TANAPA should collaborate in undertaking a focused
study of the Gombe fishing camps and local fishing practices, with a view to
producing management recommendations which TANAPA can implement. This
proposal should be discussed at TANAPA HQ, and if accepted joint decisions should
be made about the composition of the research team and its terms of reference. On
LTBP’s side, such research should obviously include inputs from FPSS and SESS,
and possibly also BIOSS.

Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Community Conservation Service (CCS)

43. The Mtanga PRA revealed that TANAPA’s Community Conservation Service
(CCS) is not working as effectively as it could be in the communities surrounding
GSNP (see Lwoga (ed.) 1997). The main reason for this is that its assistance to
neighbouring communities, provided through the Support for Community Initiated
Projects (SCIP) Fund, is channelled through the village governments. In a village like
Mtanga this means that most support takes the form of assistance to community
services (especially schools and clinics) in the village centre. This is all very well, but
is of little direct benefit to villagers who live close to the park boundary and who
justifiably feel that they bear most of the costs of being neighbours to the park (in
Kazinga sub-village, bordering GSNP, these costs include loss of agricultural land and
crop-raiding by animals dwelling within the park). The GSNP Community
Conservation Warden (CCW), a member of the PRA team, recognised this problem,
but felt that there was little he could do about it because the modus operandum of
CCS / SCIP is set by TANAPA HQ. It would therefore be appropriate for LTBP to
discuss this issue with senior TANAPA staff, and to help them explore possible
solutions.

18
Other Issues for Discussion

44. A range of other issues may also be discussed with TANAPA HQ, relating to
both GSNP and MMNP (which LTBP will have more information on following the
proposed PRA in Kalilani). These include earlier proposals for the construction of
research / environmental education facilities, the resolution of boundary disputes,
assistance in drawing up aquatic biodiversity inventories, and possible collaboration in
drawing up ethnobotanical inventories (at GSNP this would also involve close
collaboration with the Gombe Stream Research Centre, managed by the Jane Goodall
Institute).

45. The following actions are therefore recommended:

 PCU to follow up on the recommendations of Ed Allison (see Allison et al. 1996),

communicating formally with TANAPA HQ and sending copies of relevant LTBP
materials.

 Julian Quan and/or other senior LTBP staff to visit TANAPA HQ and discuss the
issues raised above and potential for collaboration: other LTBP components
should be consulted re their current intentions / proposals regarding GSNP and
MMNP before this visit.

 Priority should be given to the proposal for a joint study of the fishing camps and
fishing practices at GSNP, with a view to producing recommendations for the
future management of the aquatic area bordering the park. The timing of such a
study will depend on the outcome of these discussions and the work programmes
of the different special studies components which may be involved

STRENGTHENING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT (SPAM)

SPAM Consultancy

46. Apart from the two TANAPA-managed NPs, Gombe and Mahale, there are a
number of other protected areas (PAs), gazetted or proposed, in the Tanzanian portion
of the Lake Tanganyika catchment. These include Forest Reserves (FRs) and the PAs
which provide for different degrees of game utilisation: Game Reserves (GRs), Game
Controlled Areas (GCAs), and Open Areas (OAs). Most of these fall under the
authority of either the Forestry or the Wildlife Departments in the Ministry of Tourism
and Natural Resources (MTNR), their day-to-day management being the responsibility
of these departments at District level (departmental representatives at Regional level
play some role, but this is being curtailed as part of the process of decentralisation).

47. To date LTBP has paid little attention to these different PAs, and we do not
possess a full list of the PAs in the project area or a map showing their locations, let
alone comprehensive information on their status and management. Previous SESS
missions to Kigoma have, however, gathered some information on the different

19
wildlife PAs in Kigoma Region (Walsh 1996a) and the Forest Reserves (FRs) in
Kigoma District (Walsh 1996b). These PAs cover different areas of concern to the
project. The FRs are scattered throughout the upper catchment: in Kigoma District
there are a number in forested areas close to the Malagarasi Swamps, in addition to
one bordering Lake Tanganyika. The wildlife PAs, which are the most extensive, are
concentrated in the lower areas in and around the Malagarasi Swamps (Annex 4
reproduces the relevant sections of Walsh 1996a and 1996b).

48. PAs clearly have the potential to play an important role in conserving
biodiversity, not only within their boundaries, but also downstream, and ultimately in
Lake Tanganyika itself. FRs in the upper catchment, including the hills along the lake
shore, should function to provide catchment protection in particular areas, reducing
the impacts of soil erosion and sedimentation, as well as sustaining a reservoir of
indigenous plant (including tree) species which can drawn upon in reafforestation
programmes beyond their boundaries. Wetland PAs should have equally important
functions, acting both to conserve local biodiversity and to maintain or enhance the
capacity of the wetlands themselves to absorb and reduce the impacts of
sedimentation and pollution from upstream.

49. Unfortunately, the available evidence suggests that many PAs in the project area
are not being managed effectively, and in some cases are hardly functioning as PAs at
all (see Annex 4). The underlying problem appears to be one of District capacity (e.g.
lack of resources to demarcate and police PAs, lack of knowledge / training about
resourcing options and potential for community management initiatives etc.). This is
a problem for SESS (plus EE) to tackle, which also links in with the wider problem of
District capacity to foster any kind of positive environmental action (see Strategy 2
above). It is proposed that a study is undertaken on SPAM in the Tanzanian project
area (not Kigoma Region alone), with the object of understanding the problem and
producing specific recommendations for action by LTBP and its partners. This study
should take the form of a consultancy, led by an experienced Tanzanian consultant,
who may work together with an officer seconded by NEMC. Draft TOR for the
Tanzanian consultant are provided in Annex 5, and TOR for the NEMC officer may
be adapted from these.

50. In order to initiate the SPAM consultancy, the following actions should be taken:

 Dr. Lwoga to continue efforts to identify a qualified Tanzanian researcher /

consultant who may undertake the consultancy (at the time of writing he was trying
to make contact with Claude Mung’ong’o, of the Institute of Resource Assessment
in the University of Dar es Salaam).

 Dr. Menz and Dr. Lwoga to meet with the candidate(s) in the PCU and discuss the
TOR, consultancy timing, and remuneration for the consultant. Julian Quan to be
consulted at different stages of the process before the consultancy contract is
signed.

20

 Dr. Menz to request the participation of a NEMC officer in the consultancy and, if
successful, to agree terms of the assignment with NEMC (which should be covered
by the Memorandum of Understanding being drawn up between LTBP and
NEMC). A candidate for this assignment has already been suggested by Anna
Maembe, NEMC’s Senior Environmental Information Officer: he is Fred Rugiga,
a NEMC Biodiversity Officer from Kigoma.

 Dr. Menz and Laisha Said to consider what, if any, input she might have to this
consultancy (e.g. accompanying the consultant and NEMC officer for part of their
field trip to Kigoma / Sumbawanga).

Protecting the Malagarasi Wetlands

51. Although these will be covered in the SPAM consultancy, special mention must
be made of the Malagarasi Swamps (i.e. those inland and upstream of Uvinza). This
extensive wetland complex is undoubtedly of considerable importance, though there
are many aspects of its biodiversity and hydrological functions - not to mention human
impacts upon these - which are little understood. The Malagarasi Swamps qualify as a
RAMSAR site (Kamukala and Crafter (eds.) 1991): and NEMC is currently preparing
for Tanzania to join other signatories to the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance. It has been suggested that Malagarasi Swamps be given
National Park status (Cohen (ed.) 1991): at present the central wetland area is only
rather poorly protected by two Game Reserves (see Annex 4 below). Meanwhile, The
Explorers Club of New York is planning a multidisciplinary expedition (The Black
Rhino Expedition 1997) which may produce new data on the wetland and enhance its
international media profile. To date LTBP has shown little interest in the Malagarasi
Swamps, at least judging by the number of times they are referred to in project reports.
This is a serious omission, and it is therefore recommended that:

 LTBP monitors and facilitates research on the Malagarasi Swamps; and conducts
its own research if considered necessary.

 LTBP considers joining the lobby for upgrading the protected status of the
Swamps. This might, at the very least, be considered as an issue for discussion
with NEMC and TANAPA.

Protected Areas at Village Level

52. Finally, a word should be said about PAs at village level. Some villages /
sub-villages on the lake shore between Kigoma town and the Burundi border have
made efforts to protect patches of forest within their own boundaries. In some cases
these have been individual / family initiatives. This is a process which should be
encouraged, and its extension to sections of the lake shore itself explored. It is
therefore recommended that:

 in future PRAs, SE and EE should pay more attention to the capacity of villages to
set aside their own PAs, considering how this process might be encouraged, and

21
whether or not it is also feasible for villages to extend protection of this kind to
sections of the lake shore, including the river / stream deltas.

22
 Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The consultancy worked to the following terms of reference (proposed by Julian

Quan, NRI lead in SESS). Revisions (agreed with Andy Menz, Project Coordinator)
and other necessary modifications are noted in square brackets.

1. Conduct detailed planning for the intended follow up PRAs in Mahale and
Malagarasi (and elsewhere?), including local staff requirements, timing, costings,
logistics, and coordination with the fishing practices study, liaising as necessary with
Andy Menz and the project office in Kigoma.

2. Review Chris Lwoga’s work programme for the coming year and make detailed
plans for his leadership of further field work, discussions / collaboration with NGOs
and others from other districts of Kigoma and Rukwa, and the preparation for a
workshop in Kigoma later in the year.

3. Review possibilities for a replacement for Laisha Said, as national / regional EE

coordinator, and take any action possible to speed recruitment. [Meetings at NEMC
confirmed that Laisha Said is still assigned to LTBP and willing to work as National
EE Coordinator, subject to the finalisation of a Memorandum of Agreement between
LTBP and NEMC].

4. Identify any specific practical initiatives that might be taken in environmental

education, group development, alternative income generation, or training and capacity
building for local government, either in the Gombe area, or more widely along the
Tanzanian lake coast.

5. Consider how and by whom appropriate local health campaigns and soil
conservation work might be undertaken, how these might be linked to LTBP EE work,
and what assistance the project could provide.

6. Discuss with TANAPA their needs and interests in relation to the possibilities of
improving the management of the aquatic areas of Gombe and Mahale National Parks,
in particular the scope for improving local community participation and the social
benefits of park management. Ascertain whether or not TANAPA local staff could
become more involved in the environmental education activities in surrounding areas,
and consider what contributions the LTBP project could usefully make. [TANAPA
HQ is in Arusha and it was not possible to arrange a visit a meetings in the time
available to the consultant. More extensive discussions and follow-up with TANAPA
are recommended in this report.]

7. Leave adequate documentation with the PCU and forward it to NRI, in preparation
for further follow up during visits by Paul Vare (ICCE) and myself [Julian Quan] in
April and May, for which exact dates are yet to be confirmed. [Paul Vare arrived in
Dar es Salaam on 11 April and it was possible to hold direct discussions with him].
23
 Annex 2

ACTIVITIES AND MEETINGS

Sunday, 6 April 1997

 arrival in Dar es Salaam (evening).

 brief meeting in hotel with George Strunden, Project Manager, TACARE (on leave
in Dar es Salaam).

Monday, 7 April

 reported to PCU, Dar es Salaam.

 review of consultancy TOR with Andy Menz, Project Coordinator, LTBP;
debriefing on project progress and recent developments, including newly available
reports.

 meeting with Andy Menz and Chris Lwoga, National SESS Coordinator
(designate); subsequent meeting with Chris Lwoga alone.

 fax and telephone communications with Keith Banister, SLO, Kigoma.

 fax and e-mail communications with Vicki Cowan, MRAG; sent report on Kigoma
PRA as an e-mail attachment.

 telephone discussion with Julian Quan, SESS lead, NRI.

 reading recent project reports.

Tuesday, 8 April

 PCU: report reading and discussions with Andy Menz.

 telephone discussions with Keith Banister, SLO, Kigoma, and Beatrice Marwa,
SESS counterpart, Kigoma.

 reading recent project reports, including report on Zambia PRA training workshop
and field activities e-mailed by MRAG.

Wednesday, 9 April

 meeting (together with Andy Menz) with Anna T. Maembe, Senior Environment
Information Officer, National Environment Management Council (NEMC).
Subsequently joined by Laisha Said, National EE Coordinator (designate).

 [further communication by telephone between Andy Menz and Anna Maembe at
NEMC].

 telephone discussion with David Salmon, ODA RNR Coordinator for Tanzania, re
senior contacts at TANAPA HQ, Arusha.

 PCU: report reading and writing; further discussions with Andy Menz.

Thursday, 10 April

 PCU: report writing; continued discussions with Andy Menz.

 [Andy Menz drafting MOA between LTBP and NEMC: further communication by
telephone with Laisha Said at NEMC].

 telephone discussions with Vicki Cowan and Philippe Petit at MRAG, re joint
planning and proposals for FP and Biodiversity studies.

24
Friday, 11 April

 second meeting with Chris Lwoga, National SE Coordinator (designate).

 second (brief) meeting with Laisha Said, National EE Coordinator (designate).

 telephone discussion with Julian Quan, SESS lead, NRI.

 meeting with Paul Vare, EE consultant, ICCE.

 reading reports, including report of Philippe Petit, FPSS, e-mailed by MRAG.

 preparing summary report for PCU and NRI.

Saturday, 12 April

 PCU: report writing.

 faxed summary report to Julian Quan, NRI.

 departure for Nairobi (evening).

Saturday, 19 April

 return to Mombasa (afternoon).

 collected draft SESS workplan, faxed by Julian Quan, NRI.

Monday, 21 April

 report writing.

Tuesday, 22 April

 report writing.

Wednesday 23 April

 report writing.

25
 Annex 3

PROVISIONAL WORKPLAN FOR DR. C. M. F. LWOGA, SESS NATIONAL

COORDINATOR (DESIGNATE) FOR TANZANIA, 1997-98

The following provisional workplan for Chris Lwoga is subject to his availability and
agreement. In some cases the timing of inputs depends upon the completion of earlier
tasks and / or effective coordination with other LTBP components (including EE,
FPSS and BIOSS). Inputs (in terms of days to be worked) are estimated, and will
doubtless be revised as SESS and other activities develop.

MONTH INPUT TASKS

(DAYS)

1997

May 3 identification and briefing of consultant for SPAM

study

June 1 discussion and finalisation of contract (including this

workplan) with PCU

2 Mahale PRA planning meetings with Philippe Petit

and Laisha Said in Dar

2 other coordination / networking activities in Dar

July 21 Mahale PRA (final preparation; assembly of team and

fieldwork planning / training; fieldwork; collective
analysis and note-writing)

2 other coordination / networking activities in Dar

August 10 Mahale PRA report writing (with Laisha Said and

faxed / e-mailed inputs from FP team)

12 Rukwa mission (with Laisha Said and ? Philippe Petit):

travel direct to Sumbawanga from Dar; one full
working week visiting District and other offices;
preparation of joint report on return to Dar

26
September (21) (Rukwa PRA: depends on outcome of August
mission)

2 other coordination / networking activities in Dar (days

to be increased if Rukwa PRA postponed or cancelled)

2 review of SPAM study outputs (movable)

October (10) (Rukwa PRA report writing: if full PRA conducted)

5 Kigoma workshop planning: i.e. consultation with

Laisha Said in Dar - EE to take lead in planning and
preparation

2 other coordination / networking activities in Dar (days

to be increased in Rukwa PRA postponed or cancelled)

November 10 Kigoma workshop (assistance with final preparation;

workshop presentations and facilitation)

5 drawing up action plan (and workplan) for 1998 in

consultation with full project SE / EE team and PCU

2 other coordination / networking activities in Dar

December 5 coordination / networking activities in Dar

1998 activities subject to outcomes of the above and

action plan / workplan drawn up in November 1997

27
 Annex 4

PROTECTED AREAS IN KIGOMA REGION AND DISTRICT

Introduction

This Annex reproduces notes on different protected areas (PAs) in Kigoma Region
and District from earlier SESS reports. The information already gathered will have to
be expanded, and supplemented with data on other PAs in the Tanzanian part of the
Lake Tanganyika catchment, as part of the proposed consultancy on Strengthening
Protected Area Management (SPAM).

Game Reserves, Game Controlled Areas, and Open Areas in Kigoma Region
(from Walsh 1996a)

“Tuesday, 30 July, Kigoma

47. Wildlife Department. Morning meeting with the Regional Game Officer,
David Sommy (accompanied by Beatrice Marwa). Kigoma used to be a
District within Tabora Region, and was the last but one Region to be created in
the country, in the mid-1970s. This is one reason why up-to-date maps are not
available. Overall Kigoma Region has a low population, and this is
advantageous for conservation. An outdated map shows large parts of the
Region, especially to the east, set aside as Game Controlled Areas (GCAs).
Some of these, however, have never been gazetted, but function as ‘open
areas’ for hunting; at least one has been all but transformed by human
utilisation; and two have been upgraded to form a Game Reserve (GR).

48. Njingiwe and Moyowosi GCAs were combined to form Moyowosi GR,
which covers an area of 6,000 km2 on the western side of the Malagarasi River
and swamps. The eastern side falls within Kigosi GR, in Kahama District
(Shinyanga Region): this GR is about 7,000 km2. Settlement is not permitted
in Moyowosi GR, which is managed by the Wildlife Department. The ‘project
manager’ for Moyowosi used to be based in Kifura: now there is a ‘sector
manager’ there and the ‘project manager’ for the combined Moyowosi-Kigosi
GR is based in Kahama. There are three hunting blocks in Moyowosi,
currently assigned to different tourist hunting companies (one based in Dar and
two in Arusha). Hunting licence fees are paid in US$. A buffalo, for example,
sells for $600, of which $450 goes to the treasury and $150 into the Wildlife
Protection Fund managed by the Director of Wildlife. 25% of the latter is
given to the nearby Districts, while 75% remains in Dar and is the source of
the regional retention fund from which game patrols outside of the GR are
paid.

28
49. There is no HAT (Hunting Association of Tanzania) branch in Kigoma,
although a Kigoma resident is HAT’s Assistant Chairman at national level.
This man, an Indian, owns a company which uses one of the hunting blocks in
Moyowosi GR - and also a luxury hotel which has been built on the headland
south of Kigoma town.

50. Makere North and South (to the west of Moyowosi) is an ungazetted open
area which has been allocated for tourist hunting this year. It has been
allocated to a company in Dar whose owners live in Kibondo District. They
also hunt in the Uvinza open area to the south of Makere. A company based in
Arusha also hunts over into Rukwa Region.

51. In the far north, at Nyamroa in Kibondo District, another ungazetted GCA
/ open area has come under pressure from refugees and a lot of the wildlife in
it has been hunted out. Two ungazetted GCAs to the south of Moyowosi GR
and east of Uvinza, Gombe and Luganzo, are now heavily settled.

52. The Wildlife Department plays no role in managing Gombe and Mahale
National Parks (which come under TANAPA), only in providing advice.

53. The Malagarasi swamps are very important and the Wildlife Department
would like to see these and other areas more fully protected and their
(eco)tourist potential developed. The Malagarasi wetlands are threatened by an
influx of cattle-herders, including Tutsi. There are now more than 7,000 cattle
along the Moyowosi River. Sukuma agropastoralists are also coming into the
area via the Malagarasi bridge. The Tutsi in the Ilunde area came in the 1960s
from Burundi. They have no farms but just herd cattle, which are more
resistant than the local Ha cattle to tsetse fly. Because they are living within
the Moyowosi GR the Wildlife Department tried to move them out. A
commission involving other ministries was established in January 1995 and its
report (written in Swahili) recommended the removal of the Tutsi. However,
the regional administration blocked this move, on the grounds that the Tutsi
had already been moved once - to their present location - in 1975. It is felt that
there was a political element in this decision, and the Wildlife Department
would still like to see the commission’s recommendations put into practice.

54. A lot of timber is being cut by outsiders. The forest laws are not really
applied in Kigoma Region: elsewhere, for example in Arusha, it is difficult to
cut trees without a permit. There is no traditional protection of forests and
there was none during the colonial period (because of the remoteness of
Kigoma and lack of officers posted to the area). Local people do not know
where the Forest Reserves (FRs) are, and their boundaries are not marked.
There is therefore some need for EE and awareness-raising, to inform people
which areas they can utilise. The FRs in Rukwa Region suffer from the same
problem, with the exception of the well-protected Katavi area.

55. The Wildlife Department only has 3-4 staff at regional level, most work at
the District level. Each District has an Assistant Game Officer (AGO) and
29
 Game Assistants (GAs) of different grades working under them. In the open
areas there is a game post near each village with GAs posted there. Hunting
quotas are prepared in the Districts and sent to the Region to forward to the
Director of Wildlife in Dar for approval. Typically a lot of the quota is not
consumed. There is a shortage of ammunition, which has not been imported
by the government for the past two years. The distance of hunting grounds
from the villages is also a disincentive to hunters - motorised transport is a
must. Most town-based hunters no longer hunt. There is, however, some
poaching using old-fashioned muzzle loaders, for which shot can be
manufactured locally. In some areas it is estimated that there are two muzzle
loaders for every five houses. Gun owners pay Tshs 1,000 per annum for their
licences. Permits to shoot from the quota expire after 14 days, and it is usually
difficult to shoot the animals listed on the permit in the time allowed.

56. Nonetheless, wildlife numbers are falling, especially big game and buffalo
in particular. Game meat is traded Burundi and the refugee camps. Game
meat also provides an important source of protein for many villagers in the
interior. Insufficient quantities of fish are harvested and sold from Lake
Tanganyika: the main markets for these fish are the District headquarters. The
Malagarasi system supplies few fish - because the rivers are fast flowing, also
the swamps shrink in the dry season and many fish die. There are not many
cattle in the area because of tsetse fly: most goats are found along the
Kigoma-Kibondo road.

57. We also discussed the new (draft) Wildlife Policy and the implications of
this for developing mechanisms for natural resource management at the village
level. The RGO is well aware of the policy and some of the pilot attempts to
put it into practice, and we agreed that there is considerable potential for this
kind of work in Kigoma Region.”

Forest Reserves in Kigoma District (from Walsh 1996b)

“Forestry (and Beekeeping)

9. The District Forestry Officer (DFO) is Juma Manota, who is currently

absent on sick leave. The Acting DFO is Kishela Siulapwa, who originally
hails from Rukwa Region [and might therefore also be a useful source on
information on this area]. They are the only two officers based in Kigoma
town. Their office is in the town centre and therefore separate from the head
offices of Fisheries and Wildlife.

10. There are 15 Forestry Assistants (FAs) based in the field, most of them in
villages bordering Forest Reserves. Only one of them is a woman. None of
them has been trained to Diploma or Certificate level, but they have received
basic training from local institutes (including Rongai and Sao Hill) since
joining the department. Their principal work is to guard the Forest Reserves in

30
the district (acting as forest rangers) and educate villagers on the need for
environmental conservation. Their salaries are paid by the office of the DED.

11. At present all of the Forest Reserves (FRs) in the district are maintained
under central government authority. There are no Local Authority (LA) or
District Council FRs, though three have been proposed: (1) Rukunda LA FR;
(2) Kachambi LA FR; and (3) Ziwa Sagara FR. All of these are in the
Nguruka area, in the east of the district.

12. There are seven existing central government FRs, as follows:

Mkuti FR (12,850 ha.)

Mlela FR (80,960 ha.)
Ilunde FR (60,144 ha.)
Basanza FR (5,376 ha.)
Uvinza FR (16,640 ha.)
Rugufu FR (3,584 ha.)
Mkungwe Bay FR (5,808 ha.)

13. Two further central government FRs have been proposed:

Igamba FR (46,920 ha.)

Tubila FR (3,230 ha.)

14. A number of former FRs were encroached and effectively eliminated in

the wake of villagisation in the mid-1970s. These included the two Native
Authority (NA) FRs closest to what is now Gombe National Park: (1) Bitale
NA FR; and (2) Kalinzi NA FR. Encroachment continues to be a serious
problem in those FRs which border villages which possess insufficient
agricultural land of their own. Mkuti FR is estimated to have suffered 55%
encroachment, Mlela FR has been encroached to the extent that forest is only
left on the hilltops, while Mkungwe Bay is estimated to have suffered 35%
encroachment. The remaining four reserves, all in the eastern part of the
district, are said to be well preserved, largely because the surrounding villages
have ample land for cultivation.

15. The only FR on the lakeshore is Mkungwe Bay. This lies between
Kirando village in the north (not to be confused with the Kirando in Rukwa
Region) and Sigunga in the south. The inhabitants of Kirando depend mainly
upon fishing, which is said to be very good off the FR because of the
protection which it provides and the rocky shoreline. The inhabitants of
Sigunga are a mixture of Ha, Tongwe and Bembe, and have been mainly
responsible for the encroachment which the forest has suffered. There are no
species lists for this or other FRs, and they have not been properly surveyed
and boundaries marked for many years, a function of the department’s lack of
resources to undertake such work.

31
16. In order to resource what extra work it does, the department relies heavily
upon collaboration with donor-funded projects, NGOs, and CBOs (especially
local women’s groups). In 1988 some research was done by FAO consultants
on indigenous species and forest protection: this took approximately one
month in Kigoma and Kasulu Districts, and involved some of the FAs (the
resulting report(s) are thought to be lodged in the Regional Forestry Office).
Under KIDEP the department worked with women’s groups (and the District
Community Development Office) to promote tree planting and the use of
improved cooking stoves: work focused upon three villages, Mwakizega,
Kalende, and Nyanganga. More recently the department has collaborated with
TACARE and mission organisations working in the district.

17. As noted above, there is no separate Beekeeping department in Kigoma

District, and it is combined with Forestry. The reason given for this is that
beekeeping is not seen to have much potential in the area. Lack of funds to
employ a District Beekeeper (and other officers below him / her) might be a
more cogent reason, given that honey gathering by ‘traditional’ methods is an
important economic activity in many of the surviving woodlands and forests,
especially in the south of the district (Kielland’s undated report gives some
idea of the importance of this activity among the Bende and Tongwe living to
the north and east of Mahale Mountains National Park).”

32
 Annex 5

DRAFT TOR FOR CONSULTANCY ON STRENGTHENING PROTECTED

AREA MANAGEMENT (SPAM) IN THE LAKE TANGANYIKA
CATCHMENT (TANZANIA)

Introduction

[brief introduction to LTBP and its objectives, and the role of the SESS component]

Strengthening Protected Area Management (SPAM)

There are many different types of Protected Area (PA) in the Tanzanian portion of the
Lake Tanganyika catchment, which spans four regions: Kigoma, Rukwa, Tabora and
Shinyanga. While LTBP is well informed about the National Parks in the catchment
(Gombe Stream and Mahale Mountains), it has relatively little information about other
kinds of PA, including Forest Reserves, Game Reserves, and Game Controlled Areas.

The little information which LTBP does have, about some of the PAs in Kigoma
Region, indicates that a number of them are being poorly managed and encroached /
overexploited - in some cases to the extent that they hardly function as PAs any more.
Preliminary fact-finding suggests that one of the reasons for this situation is lack of
District and departmental capacity to manage PAs, stemming from e.g. lack of
resources to demarcate and police PAs, lack of knowledge / training about resourcing
options and the potential for community management initiatives etc.

LTBP would like to know more about the number, status, and management problems
of the PAs in the Tanzanian catchment; the reasons for these problems; and possible
solutions to them, drawing upon experiences elsewhere in Tanzania as well as within
the project area. Hence the title of this consultancy: Strengthening Protected Area
Management (SPAM).

Consultancy on SPAM in the Lake Tanganyika Catchment (Tanzania)

The consultancy will be undertaken by a qualified Tanzanian researcher / consultant,

assisted by a NEMC officer who will work under his/her supervision. The total
duration of the consultancy will be 4 weeks (28 days), during which time the
consultant (and assistant) will be expected to visit different (if not all) Districts within
the project area, gathering information and holding meetings as necessary.

Specifically, the consultant will:

1. Gather background information on all of the PAs in the Lake Tanganyika

catchment (in Tanzania), including information on their location, size, legal status,
history, management, staffing, type and degree of both permitted and illegal
utilisation, and the degree to which this utilisation is sustainable (asking how
threatened are they, by whom, and why?). This research should include gazetted and
33
ungazetted PAs, defunct and proposed PAs, and others of uncertain status. PAs are
here defined to include Forest Reserves, Game Reserves, Game Controlled Areas,
open hunting areas, and other PAs recognised by national and local government
(excluding the National Parks and small areas protected solely by village by-laws and
local custom).

2. Review with PA managers, including District Forestry and Game Officers, the
problems of PA management and the possible solutions to these. The following are
the kinds of questions which might be asked: How is PA management resourced?
How can this resourcing be improved? Who are the different stakeholders in PAs and
their management? To what extent are they in conflict? Are managers aware of all
the options open to them? Do they have sufficient knowledge and/or training? What
opportunities are there for improving management with existing resources? What role
do local communities play in PA management? Could their role be enhanced? How
do the PA managers and other government officials perceive PAs? What is the role of
the District Councils? What, if any, are the implications of local government reform
for PA management? Land tenure reform? What work has been done by
donor-funded projects? NGOs and CBOs? Are there any plans for creating new PAs?
How will this be done?

3. Review the same or similar questions with a sample of other local stakeholders in
PA management, e.g. tourist hunting companies, HAT officials, commercial loggers,
NGO and CBO representatives, politicians, villagers.

4. Review the available literature, ‘grey’ or published, relating to PAs and their
management in the Lake Tanganyika catchment.

5. Review, through a search of the literature and discussions with resource persons
(e.g. researchers and environmentalists in Dar es Salaam), experiences of PA
management elsewhere in Tanzania. Are there any successful or potentially
successful models available? Could these be applied in the project area? How? Can
this be done with existing resources? What types of intervention are required?
Additional resources? Training?

6. Supervise the work of the NEMC officer assigned to the consultancy; and liaise
with other LTBP staff and consultants as required.

7. Submit a report at the end of the consultancy detailing findings and presenting
practical recommendations for SPAM in the Lake Tanganyika catchment. This
report should include a map or maps showing the location of all the PAs in the project
area, and a table or tables summarising the basic facts about them. An itinerary / list
of persons consulted should be appended to the report.

34
 Annex 6

REFERENCES

Allison, E. H., Bailey-Watts, A. E., Duck, R. W., Foxall, C., Patterson G., and Petit,
P. (1996) Report of the Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Institution and
Resources Assessment Mission to Tanzania, Zaire and Zambia - 8 August to 3
September 1996. Chatham: NRI.

Cohen, A. S. (ed.) (1991) Report on the First International Conference on the

Conservation and Biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika. Bujumbura: World
Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and The World Resources Institute.

COOPIBO (1995) Survey of Agricultural Systems and Potential Partners, Kasulu

District. Dar es Salaam: COOPIBO Tanzania.

De Vos, L. and Snoeks, J. (1994) ‘The Non-Cichlid Fishes of the Lake Tanganyika
Basin’, Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergeben. Limnol., 44: 391-405.

Kamukala, G. L. and Crafter, S. A. (eds.) (1991) Wetlands of Tanzania:

Proceedings of a Seminar on the Wetlands of Tanzania, Morogoro, Tanzania,
27-29 November, 1991. Gland: IUCN.

Kielland, J. (undated) A Report on the Evergreen Forests and Montane Grasslands

of Mpanda and Kigoma, unpublished typescript [in the possession of Dr
Anthony Collins, Gombe Research Centre, and copied for LTBP files].

Lwoga, C. M. F. (ed.) (1997) Participatory Rural Appraisal in Mtanga Village,

Kigoma District [including Walsh 1997a, 1997b, and 1997c]. Dar es Salaam:
LTBP.

MRAG (1997) Consultation Document for the Preliminary Strategic Action Plan.
London: MRAG.

Murray, J. (1992) A Rapid Survey of Conservation and Development Issues Around

Gombe National Park, Tanzania, for the Recommendation of Management
Interventions, unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Nishida, T. and Uehara, S. (1981) ‘Kitongwe Names of Plants: A Preliminary

Listing’, African Study Monographs, 1, 109- 131.

Petit, P. (ed.) (1997) Fishing Practices Special Studies for the Lake Tanganyika
Biodiversity Project (Part I: Participatory Rural Appraisals in Tanzania,
Mtanga Village; Part II: Participatory Rural Appraisals in Zambia, Kasakalwe,
Nsumbu and Kapata Villages; Part III: Notes on the Biodiversity Impact Score
and Other Features Relevant to LTBP Objectives; Part IV: Appendices and
Data from the Special Studies). Dar es Salaam: LTBP.
35
Quan, J. (1996) Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project, Socio-Economics and
Environmental Education: Draft Action Plan. Chatham: NRI.

Quan, J. (1997) Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project Socio-Economics /

Environmental Education Component: Socio-Economics Draft Workplan.
Chatham: NRI.

The Explorers Club. (undated) The Black Rhino Expedition 1997. New York: The
Explorers Club.

Townsley, P. (1997) Report on PRA Training Workshop and Field Activities, 26th
January - 27th February, 1997, Zambia. London: MRAG.

Walsh, M. T. (1996a) Socio-Economic Studies in Tanzania for the Lake Tanganyika

Biodiversity Project: A Practical Assessment and Draft Workplan. Dar es
Salaam: LTBP.

Walsh, M. T. (1996b) Planning Action Research on the Lakeshore. Dar es Salaam:

LTBP.

Walsh, M. T. (1997a) A Preliminary Glossary of Ha Plant Names: Ethnobotany in

and around Gombe Stream National Park, Western Tanzania. Kigoma: LTBP.

Walsh, M. T. (1997b) Mammals in Mtanga: Notes on Ha and Bembe

Ethnomammalogy in a Village bordering Gombe Stream National Park,
Western Tanzania. Kigoma: LTBP.

Walsh, M. T. (1997c) Snakes and other Reptiles in Mtanga: Preliminary Notes on

Ha Ethnoherpetology in a Village bordering Gombe Stream National Park,
Western Tanzania. Kigoma: LTBP.

Walsh, M. T. and Lwoga, C. M. F. L. (1996) Plan for Action Research in Mtanga

Village, Kigoma Rural District, Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: LTBP.

Walsh, M. T., Said, L. S., Marwa, B. and Banister, K. (1996) Fish and Fishing in the
River Mungonya at Bubango, Kigoma District, Tanzania. Kigoma: LTBP.

Whitehead, M. (1996) Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project - Report on Visits to

Zambia (7-19 July) and Tanzania (20-29 July) 1996 (draft). Cheltenham:
ICCE.

36