Increase income and also food availability for the people in Mtwara, because people are not self sufficient in food and there are little funding sources at the household level.

Interest in markets (internal and external) of the crops harvested in Mtwara, both food and cash, because there is an unreliable markets and this is monopolised by middlemen

Interest to facilitate people to own land under the Village Land Laws of 1999; property ownership is not formalised

Contribution from the district is not enough, so most of the priorities of the communities are not taken on board

Lack of transport to the communities by the district council, they have no car

Bureaucracy, takes time to authorise requests (covers both land and agriculture issues)

Programme is related to crops grown. We know what are the most important crops

Also know that land is an important issue. If we consider that gas exploitation and future investment activities, we know that land property issues will be discussed

Programme based on local expertise on CSOs. Clear TORs.

Distances not considered, not much to do.

Not many CSOs working on agricultural issues

One CSO failed to abide to CONCERNs partnership agreement – misappropriation of resources. Therefore activities were not implemented

Directly related to people’s needs: food and land ownership

Conducted research and case studies before starting the programme

Based on the District Planning Frameworks (Opportunities and Obstacles Development) and the Mid Term Expenditure Framework (done by district council)

Not all people get benefit.

Staff and partners were trained on RBA and on documentation, mainstreaming HIV and equality

Partners are getting enough support on how to implement RBA from CONCERN staff

Good use of resources because most of the identified needs were addressed, such as land issues, livestock issues, agriculture and crop production and also trainings to various committees and communities

Follow up from CONCERN: visits to se actual implementation against planned activities

Resources were not enough to address all the needs of the communities

Plans were informed by the District Planning Frameworks (O&OD and MTEF)

There was initial consultation on the distribution of roles and responsibilities, based on the competence and mandate of partners

Difficult to reach villages during training, due to poor roads and large distances

Review meetings that involved all stakeholders were held every three months, formally every six months

Supported villages and ward offices with notice boards, where reports are displayed

Improved meetings at a village level, held on a monthly and quarterly basis
Increased awareness thanks to UPT training

Participation of women in these meetings was not high due to male dominance

Village demarcation process completed and committees trained on their roles and responsibilities

Land committees, village government,
Improved cashew markets with warehouse receipt system

Village meetings, transparency enhanced
Meetings held as scheduled with an increased participation of women and Youth

Villagers know where to get their services due to improved interaction

Resources provided by CONCERN, added to those of the Ministry of Land

Trainings to stakeholders so as to understand roles and responsibilities

Good relationship between stakeholders

Technical support provided

Women are passive due to workload such as caring for children and agriculture and domestic activities

At least very stakeholder was able to implement activities on their specific roles and areas

Termination of the agreement with one CSO, led to reduced programme coverage

Failure of CONCERN to find a successor to this CSO

Limited funds from the government

Reconstitution of the HIV AIDS committees as per the policy guidelines (by UPT). These committees were not considering gender issues

Committees were able to support communities on HIV issues because of the training on the roles and responsibilities given by UPT and the district community development department

Various policy issues such as using gloves, the issue of stigmas, caring for sick, identifying supporting orphans because of the distribution of HIV popular version policy documents

Communities participated in developing criteria and indicators for the poor, and analysed three groups under wealth ranking. This enable the programme to target the most vulnerable

Poorest of the poor have many many needs, far exceeding the capacities of the programme – programme only addressed the most pressing needs

Target those willing to change. But not easy working through partners. Need to crosscheck.

Working together with CSOs and the government at the same programme has worked well because there was a clear division of roles and responsibilities. UPT working on capacity building and advocacy, the government providing services. Clear TORS, therefore no conflict between partners implementing the same programme

Communities understand where they can get and demand services because of concientization and advocacy on their rights to land and food

Transparency on the programme plans, budget and expenditures to the community. This was part of the programme signed MoU

Some of the communities were not valuing the services they were getting from CBETS, because they are coming from the same village

-

Improved markets through the warehouse receipt system, of which farmers get enough income to purchase food and other necessities

Increased production due to improved extension services (planting in lines and recommended spacings, using improved seeds, etc.)

Vaccination against Newcastle also spraying cashew nut dust with blowers

Communities now understand the process and institutions to demand for their land ownership, due to training

Committees and tribunals  are able to solve land disputes following the training received

Women were sensitised to demand land ownership, together with their spouse

Problems with cassava preservation. High production has created problem: no reliable market, difficulties to store it.

Some of the support were not benefiting all villages, due to inadequate funding

Programme staff supported partners to implement RBP, hence good results achieved, on top of training received before.

Good joint monitoring and evaluation of programme with partners

Technical backstopping provided to partners. And external consultants provided support to CONCERN staff (also from Dar programme manager)

Limited resources o cover all wards

Trainings enabled communities to implement their roles and responsibilities, e.g. women groups are able to process cassava, CBETS and community vaccinators stay in community, land committees solve disputes – and will continue to do it

Some of the equipment for processing cassava, such as cassava pressing machine, are not in place

-

There was support to the district to procure GPS, total station, surveying chain, computers and drawing software. This will help them in he future, can be hired to nearing districts which do not have these tools

Construction of village land registries.
Support  to agriculture department to purchase vehicle and two motorbikes, to be used after end of programme. UPT has also been supported with a computer set and printer and two motrobikes.

District has enough land

The Ministry of Land was involved, as such we got some additional funding. At the very beginning, from planning

UPT provided training on land issues to the communities