Read IUS_evaluation_report_SUA.pdf text version

IUC Programme

Institutional University Cooperation

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership with Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) Tanzania

Sinclair H.Mantell Okwach Abagi

May 2008

Acronyms and abbreviations

APOPO BEF BSU BTC CBO CIDA DANIDA DFID DFST DGDC DRPGS EA EU FINIDA FoS GDP HEAC ICT IDRC IUC JICA KRA KUL LAN NGO NORAD PANTIL PCM PCU PLs RCC RIP RRP SADC SAREC SCSRD SIDA SMC SNAL SPMC SUA Tsh ToR UA UG UCLAS UDSM URT USAID US$ VC VicRes Antipersoonsmijnen Ontmijnende Productontwikkeling funded by the Belgian Government Belgian Franc Basic Sciences Unit Belgian Technical Cooperation Community Based Organisation Canada International Development Agency Danish International Development Cooperation Agency Department for International Development (UK) Department of Food Science and Technology Directorate General for Development Cooperation of the Belgian Government Directorate of Research and Postgraduate Studies East Africa European Union Finnish Agency for International Development Faculty of Science Gross Domestic Product The Higher Education Accreditation Council Information and Communication Technology International Development Research Centre (Canadian Government Organization) Institutional University Cooperation Initiative of VLIR-UOS Japan International Cooperation Agency Key Research Area(s) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven) Local Area Network (ICT connotation) Non Governmental Organisation Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources Transformation for Improved Livelihoods Project Cycle Management (logframes form basis of project structure) Programme Coordination Unit Project Leaders Rodent Control Centre Research Initiative Programme Rodent Research Project South African Development Commission SIDA Department of Research Cooperation SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural Development Swedish International Development Agency Solomon Mahlangu Campus Sokoine National Agricultural Library SUA Pest Management Centre Sokoine University of Agriculture Tanzanian Shilling Terms of Reference University of Antwerp University of Ghent University College of Land and Architectural Studies, Dar es Salaam University of Dar es Salaam United Republic of Tanzania United States Agency for International Development United States Dollar Vice Chancellor Lake Victoria Research Initiative funded by SIDA and coordinated at the offices of IUCEA ­ Inter-University Council of East Africa, Kampala, Uganda VLIR WWF Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad World Wildlife Fund

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Table of contents

Foreword executive Summary 1. tanzania: itS national Policy Framework and PrioritieS 2. Sokoine univerSity oF agriculture (Sua) 3. the vlir univerSity Partner Programme (vlir-uoS) 4. elaboration oF the Sua-vlir PartnerShiP Programme structure Phase I Programme structure Phase II Objectives of Phase I Logframes Phase II 5. termS oF reFerence For the Final evaluation 6. evaluation methodology and Procedure 7. evaluation FindingS Individual Project Performance Qualitative assessment of each project Programme Performance Cross cutting issues 8. aSSeSSment oF Sua Programme management 9. aSSeSSment oF the univerSity PartnerShiP Cooperation Coordination 10. budgetary iSSueS 11. overall Programme aSSeSSment 12. concluSionS 13. recommendationS At the Project Level At the Programme Level At the VLIR-UOS Secretariat level 14. documentS conSulted annexeS Annex I : Annex II : Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex III : IV : V: VI : VII : VIII : IX : X: XI : XII : XIII : XIV : XV : XVI :

3 5 29 33 37 43 44 45 46 46 47 49 51 51 72 77 79 81 85 85 87 91 99 101 103 103 105 105 111 113 114 116 116 117 118 118 119 121 124 127 150 154 156 160 164 165

Schedule of interviews and related activities during in-country mission in Tanzania Participants at the discussions between Evaluation Commission and Flemish Project Leaders on 3/02/08 at Oasis Hotel Nomenclature used within the VLIR-UOS Inter-University Partnership Programme Interview formats ­ types of questions asked Programme cycle and the level of responsibilities during the different programme phases SUA undergraduate enrolment by specialization and gender (1996/97-2005/06) Formulation of SUA-VLIR Programme Phases I and II in 2001 Final Evaluation Criteria used by Evaluation Commission Outline log frame analyses of five projects conducted during Phase II Specific outputs from the SUA projects Collective Self Assessment from Northern Stakeholders in the SUA-VLIR Programme Collective Northern Stakeholder view of management of the IUC programme (Phase I and II) Southern Stakeholder assessment of overall management of the SUA-VLIR Programme Southern Stakeholder assessment of the impact of the SUA-VLIR Programme Financial support provided for equipment (investments) to the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme Summary of financial contribution made by VLIR to the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme (1997 ­ 2006)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Tables

Table 1 Table 2 Table Table Table Table Table 3 4 5 6 7

SUA Academic Courses and Awards Nature and Level of Achievement (by Project) as at Sept. 2001 (end of Phase I) as compared to initial targets Key Result Areas (1-7) of the SUA-VLIR Programme Actual allocation vs. initial budget, actual and normative share of total (1997-2000) Capacity Building Recipients of the SUA-VLIR Programme Cooperation Dynamics of the different projects in the SUA-VLIR Programme Summary of scores attributed by teams in the North on the effects of the VLIR UOS Programme on their own academic activities

34 51 66 70 79 92 100

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

Foreword

The Final Evaluation of the Flemish Institutional University Cooperation (IUC) with Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) was carried out by an Evaluation Commission consisting of International expert Professor Emeritus Sinclair Mantell (Sweden) and Country expert Dr Okwach Abagi (Kenya). The Commission had as its main tasks: A briefing at the VLIR-UOS Secretariat in Brussels on 18 January, 2008 for the International expert; Examination of written self assessment reports prepared separately by both the Flemish and the SUA stakeholders; A fact-finding mission over 9 days in late January/early February 2008: one day in Dar es Salaam visiting donor agencies directly concerned with university activities in Tanzania and eight days at the campuses of Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Morogoro. The mission was concluded by presentation on 5th February, 2008 of preliminary findings and observations to SUA management and stakeholders of both the North and the South. This immediately followed the official handing over ceremony at which VLIR-UOS presented SUA with the ownership of all investments made during the ten year programme; Preparation of a draft report on the Final Evaluation for submission to VLIRUOS by 6th March, 2008; Receipt of comments and reactions to the draft report by the coordinator and project leaders at SUA, by the Flemish University stakeholders and by VLIR; and Preparation of the Final Report followed by its submission in both hardcopy and softcopy forms to VLIR-UOS, Brussels by 31 May, 2008. The evaluation team acknowledges the extensive support it received from the VLIRUOS Secretariat in Brussels by providing it detailed information and relevant documents required for the evaluation. The Commission also thanks the Programme Coordination Unit at SUA for its untiring assistance in organising a programme of visits during which interviews were able to be held with both South and North Stakeholders before, during and following the SUA closing ceremony held on 5 February, 2008. The International expert also had the benefit of additional information about other IUC Partnership Programmes through participation in the VLIR Tenth Anniversary Policy Workshop held in Brussels on 10 - 13th March, 2008. Sinclair H. Mantell (International Expert and Leader of the Evaluation Commission) Nakhlatec International Horticulture Advisors, 370 45 Fågelmara, Sweden Email: [email protected]

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Okwach Abagi (Country Expert), Own & Associates: Centre for Research & Development, P. O. Box 67462 - 00200, City Square, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Fågelmara/Nairobi 27th May, 2008

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

country context

With a population of over 37 million, the United Republic of Tanzania is still poor with a GNP per capita of about US$230. The country covers approximately 945,000 square km, of which 883,000 is land (881,000 sq km in the mainland and 2,000 sq km in Zanzibar) and 62,000 is inland waters (lakes and rivers). About 46 per cent of the total land area is arable, with a rich potential for agricultural productivity. The climate varies from tropical along the coast to temperate in the highlands. Apart from mining, tourism and hydropower production, agriculture is a leading sector of the economy and accounts for over half of the GDP and export earnings. The government together with its development partners have committed itself to strategically address the issues of increased agricultural productivity; food security; marketing of inputs and outputs; research, training and extension; and the roles of public and private sectors in agriculture. The number of higher education institutions has grown from one at the time of independence in 1961 to 30 in 2002. Of the 30 higher education institutions in the country, six are recognized as public universities while six are private universities, seven as university colleges and eleven as non-university tertiary level institutions. The Belgian Government through the BTC Tanzania-Belgium Local Scholarships Programme provides each year local scholarships for Masters level study at national universities in Tanzania. For the Academic Year 2007/2008 a total of 50 applications were funded for subjects ranging from Agri-business to Public Health and in the natural sciences from Agriculture to Environmental Management and Wildlife Management. Many of the recipients will in fact be undertaking their postgraduate courses at universities like the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogoro 200km west of the capital city Dar es Salaam. Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) was established out of the former Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Science of the University of Dar es Salaam on 1 July 1984. The Vision of the university is to become a centre of excellence and a valued member of the global academic community in agriculture and other related fields, with emphasis on implementing practical skills, entrepreneurship, research and integration of basic and applied knowledge in an environmentally friendly manner. The University is currently made up of four campuses: the Main Campus, the Solomon Mahlangu Campus in Morogoro, the Olmotonyi Campus in Arusha and the Mazumbai Campus in Lushoto. As per its mandate, SUA has four Faculties and seven Directorates/Institutes: Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Conservation, Veterinary Medicine, Science and the Institute of Continuing Education, the Development Studies Institute, Directorate of Research and Postgraduate Studies, the Computer Centre, the

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL), the SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural Development (SCSRD), and the SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC), respectively. Currently these academic centres offer 16 undergraduate and 17 postgraduate degree programmes, leading to the awards of B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. Over the ten years 1996 to 2006, the undergraduate students enrolment has grown from 932 (700 male, 232 female) to 2,260 (1,626 male, 634 female). The current number of registered postgraduate students is 394. The gender gap between males and females enrolled at the university: 68% of students are male, while 32% are female. To perform the core functions effectively, the management of SUA and various departments have collaborated and worked closely with the URT government and also with its international partners like NORAD, JICA, DANIDA, BTC and WWF who have been investing and supporting various programmes/projects at the university. In 2005/06, the URT Government contributed towards 61% of the university's total budget while donors contributed 39%. Between July 2005 and June 2006, Norway through its PANTIL (Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources Transformation for Improved Livelihoods) programme provided 79% of all donor funds received by SUA for that financial year followed by donors based in Denmark (5.7%), Belgium (4.7%) and the USA (3.7%).

the vlir-uoS institutional university cooperation Programme

VLIR (Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad, the Flemish Interuniversity Council) has as its mandate promotion of dialogue and cooperation between the six Flemish universities. A specific task of VLIR relates to the Flemish universities' cooperation with universities in developing countries, the so-called IUC Programme. This is an inter-university cooperation programme of the Flemish universities, focused on the institutional needs and priorities of partner universities in the South. The IUC Programme is in principle demand-oriented, and seeks to promote local ownership through the full involvement of the partner both in the design and implementation of the programme. SUA was one of a few carefully selected partner universities in the South to benefit from an IUC Programme which ran for 10 years from 1997 to 2006. Support provided by academic staff based at Flemish Universities and funded by VLIR was directed towards SUA institutional development, the improvement of quality of local undergraduate and postgraduate education, and the encouragement of south-south academic and research linkages. The partnership consisted of different projects aiming at maximum institutional impact; some projects aimed at improving the organization, administration and management of the university as a whole while others concentrated on a coherent set of interventions geared towards the development of the teaching and research capacity of the university.

elaboration of the iuc Partnership Programme

Professor Walter Verheyen, a prominent taxonomic expert of the African Rodent fauna based at the University of Antwerp, was leader of the project `Rodents as Disease Carriers and Crop Destroyers' based in Tanzania from 1986 to 1989. Through

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

his association with Sokoine grew the concept of a more formal academic linkage between the emerging academic centre at SUA and the Flemish Universities. Together with Professor Bukheti S. Kilonzo and Professor Robert S. Machang'u of the RRC, Professor Verheyen was instrumental in pioneering the establishment and growth of the SUA-VLIR Programme during Phase I (1997 ­ 2002). In September 1996, three key areas for a potential IUC Programme were tentatively agreed upon, namely: Computer Network and connecting SUA to the Internet; Strengthening the Sokoine National Agricultural Library; and Development of Research Capacity, with focus on rodent research, soil, water and land management However, subsequently the list of priorities was extended to include also: Development of postgraduate degree programmes in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition; Strengthening the Basic Sciences Unit; Support of postgraduate programmes in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business The original selection of SUA as a partner in IUC collaboration was based on the criteria then valid for selection. The present VLIR-UOS model of two five-year periods for each partner institution was not in operation at the time Phase I of the SUA-VLIR Programme was being elaborated. The tentative budget proposed was US$ 1.5 million per year, to be divided equally between SUA and the University of Dar es Salaam. The latter partner was not included in the current evaluation since this university was omitted from the Phase II partnership organization. The model of cooperation and coordination designed by VLIR-UOS is one in which a single Flemish university assumes the role of a coordinator (Programme Manager) on behalf of the six universities in each VLIR-UOS programme. The University of Antwerp was assigned this responsibility in the case of SUA, and the programme application form was signed by the Vice Chancellors of UA and SUA. For the elaboration of the different phases of the Programme, stakeholders of both the IUC Phase I and II Partner Programmes were divided into two broad categories: the Northern Stakeholders and the Southern Stakeholders. The same Stakeholders were involved in the formulation of both the Phase I and Phase II (with the exception as mentioned above of the UDSM partners). Stakeholders at SUA held discussions at project/departmental level and passed their ideas onto their respective Northern counterparts who also discussed these ideas among themselves. Objectives were then developed and firmed up. In June 2002, a joint Project Cycle Management (PCM) Workshop was held at SUA. This workshop had stakeholders from both the North and the South.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Programme Structure (Phase i: 1997 - 2001; Phase ii: 2002 - 2006)

The Programme components of Phase I consisted of the following projects: Development of Facilities for Internet Connection (Computer Centre) Strengthening of the Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL) The Ecology, Biodiversity and Taxonomy of Rodents and their Parasites Soil and Water Management in the Uluguru Mountains Postgraduate Training and Staff development in Food Science and Human Nutrition Strengthening of the Basic Sciences Unit (and raising it to a sufficient status to become a Faculty within the university) Capacity Building in Agricultural Economics and Agri-business Programme Coordination Unit The specific objectives of the activities planned for Phase I were as follows: To equip the University with means for rapid acquisition, development, application, and dissemination of information in the field of agriculture and related land resource utilization sectors using modern information technology; To enhance capacity of SNAL to provide educational information through modern technology in Library and Information services; To provide necessary materials and human assistance to the Rodent Research Centre (now SPMC) for further development to enable sustainable pest research capacity for the future; To enhance, by conducting research, the technical capacity at SUA to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management / conservation on mountainous areas of Tanzania; To train highly skilled human resources in the field of Food Science and Human Nutrition with the view of promoting Food Security in the country; To strengthen the teaching of Basic Sciences in all degree programmes at SUA by enhancing the capacity of the Unit to a full Faculty status; To develop training, research and outreach capacity in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business. A tripartite cooperation agreement regarding the SUA Partner Programme between VLIR-UOS, UA and SUA was signed by the respective top management, as well as the Flemish and SUA coordinators, in Brussels on 21st of November 1997. In the agreement, the two universities assumed their respective roles as equal partners with joint responsibilities towards VLIR-UOS, except that: UA had the responsibility to mobilize and coordinate participation from other Flemish universities in order to implement the approved programme, and UA would receive from VLIR-UOS the periodic allocation for both institutions for further transfer of the financial share of the South to SUA. UA should also submit accounts for expenditure at both the North and South ends on both a quarterly and an annual basis. It was stated in the regulations that each Partner Programme should be subject to an external evaluation for every 3 ­ 5 years of operation. For 2001, the SUA programme was one of the first four to be selected for evaluation and a mid-term evaluation report was conducted in 2001.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The new Partner Programme (Phase II) followed the mid-term review and it commenced on 1 April 2003. Project Leaders at SUA and Flanders and other stakeholders deliberated on which projects to continue and the contents (roughly) of the future projects, taking into account the limitations (i.e. what activities should be dropped). It was finally decided that two projects, Food Science and Nutrition, and Agri-business should not be continued in Phase II. The objectives of Phase II were: Project 1: To improve ICT use in teaching, research and administration at SUA in the fields of agriculture, forestry, veterinary science, wildlife management etc.; Project 2: To ensure that the SNAL on SUA campus is recognized and consulted as a national centre of excellence in terms agricultural information services; Project 3: To increase the capacity for rodent research at SUA Pest Management Centre so as to reduce harvest losses due to rodent damage in maize fields in Tanzania and to reduce the number of plague cases in Lushoto District; Project 4: To improve research and teaching capacity at SUA in terms of mountainous land husbandry, and to enhance forest and water resources management; Project 5: To strength the capacity of Faculty of Science to effectively discharge its role in training research and advisory services; Project 6: Programme Coordination Unit

terms of reference for the Final evaluation

After completion of 10 years activities an external evaluation of the combined Phase I and Phase II activities and outputs of the SUA-VLIR Partnership was conducted in February 2008. The evaluation had four distinct objectives. These were: To analyze the implementation of the SUA-VLIR Partnership over the 10 years of operation by: - Evaluating the global state of implementation of the programme, both at the levels of the overall programme and its constituent projects; - Evaluating whether the activities per project have met the objectives that had been defined by the actors involved, within the given timeframe and with the given means; - Evaluating the management of the programme, both in Flanders and locally, and formulating, where necessary recommendations that could be of interest for the partnerships that are still ongoing. To assess the nature of the SUA-VLIR Partnership by: - Evaluating the quality, efficiency, efficacy, impact, development relevance and sustainability of the programme in the light of the overall goal of the IUC , being institutional capacity-building of the local university, as situated in the context of the needs of the local society; - Evaluating the cooperation between all parties involved, and formulating, if necessary, recommendations that could be of interest for the partnerships that are still ongoing. To evaluate the position of the Partnership programme within the international cooperation activities of the partner university by: - Evaluating the added value of the IUC Programme for the partner university, in comparison to other ongoing donor cooperation programmes;

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

To assimilate information from the self assessments and recommend a followup plan of the Partnership by: - Evaluating the follow-up plan as elaborated in the self assessment report (Format No 1, Self Assessment per project), in view of the continuation of the different activities that have started up within the framework of the Partnership (Phase I) and the consolidation of the results as aimed for in Phase II.

evaluation methodology and procedure

The final evaluation was conducted by the external Evaluation Commission according to the approach described below: A briefing at the VLIR Secretariat in Brussels on 18 January, 2008 for the International expert; Examination of written self assessment reports prepared separately by both the Flemish and the SUA stakeholders; A fact-finding mission over 9 days in late January/early February 2008: one day in Dar es Salaam visiting donor agencies directly concerned with university activities in Tanzania and eight days at the campuses of Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Morogoro. The mission was concluded by presentation on 5th February, 2008 of preliminary findings and observations to SUA management and stakeholders of both the North and the South. This immediately followed the official handing over ceremony at which VLIR-UOS presented SUA with the ownership of all investments made during the ten year programme; Preparation of a draft report on the Final Evaluation for submission to VLIRUOS by early March, 2008; Receipt of comments and reactions to the draft report by the coordinator and project leaders at SUA, by the Flemish University stakeholders and by VLIR; and Preparation of the Final Report followed by its submission in both hardcopy and softcopy forms to VLIR-UOS, Brussels by end of May, 2008. Discussions and interviews were held with: Northern stakeholders; Southern stakeholders; VLIR-UOS and a representative of the Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGDC); Belgian Embassy and the DGDC section in the partner country; Other relevant stakeholders. The Commission visited all relevant facilities related to the operations of the Programme in the South and the evaluation was based on a mixture of result, process and impact indicators.

evaluation commission's main findings

There was general agreement among all stakeholders (South and North) that the first Phase of the SUA-VLIR IUC cooperation was a learning experience for all of the parties concerned. Phase I started with an activity programme that lasted only five months

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

(1 February 1998 to 30 June, 1998) and only began to assume a full 12-month cycle during 2001/02. Phase I of the Programme involved seven Projects that were subsequently scaled down to five in Phase II. However, it was concluded in the Mid-term Evaluation carried out in 2001 (VLIR 2001b) that the accomplishments of Phase I far outstripped the various problems of Project and Programme management encountered during that time. Achievements of each of the projects were assessed under separate Key Result Areas (KRAs) where a score of 1 = very poor; 2 = insufficient/low; 3 = sufficient; 4 = good/high; excellent/very high, and qualitatively on the basis of the levels of cooperation and degrees of service to the community at large as follows.

Project 1: Information and Communication Technology (Phases I and II)

Through this project, SUA was connected to the Internet and fees for Internet connectivity were up to the end of the SUA-VLIR being paid in part through the VLIRUOS programme. The overall objective of this project was to improve the levels of ICT used in teaching, research and administration at SUA in the fields of Agriculture, Forestry, Veterinary and Wildlife Management with the immediate results being the implementation of more effective computer teaching and learning processes, a more efficient internet access capability for students and staff at SUA and an improved Intranet service. Overall, the programme had produced highly satisfactory results. Both Self Assessment and Evaluation Commission observations were in agreement. Human Resource Development and Infrastructure Management were adjudged a score of `4' (ie good/high) by both Self Assessment and the Evaluation Commission. Each of the KRAs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 were assigned a score of `3' based on the outputs (project results). Achievement in the specific key result areas, especially in Extension and Outreach, Management, Human Resource Development and Infrastructure Management was high. The Evaluation Commission attributed, respectively, KRA scores of `4', `4', `5' and `4'. No direct output on teaching was made by this project since it was taken that KRA 2 was not the project's main focus. However the project was able to develop a total of 16 short courses in ICT which are still being offered to students, staff and members of the local community. This has made a significant contribution to academic development at SUA and the university's relationship with surrounding communities (ie `serving society'). The project members also reported that it updated two undergraduate courses. These are CIT 100: `Fundamentals of Computing and Networks' and CIT 200: `Fundamentals of Computer Programming' and the ICT team also developed a new course CIT 300: `Information and Communication Management for Agricultural Professionals'. These courses have already been approved and received accreditation from the Higher Education Accreditation Council (HEAC) of Tanzania. Internet connection within the SUA campus community has been achieved and the project has adopted the `User Group' concept for the first time for both academic staff and SUA community members so as to facilitate communication between the various users of the SUA LAN, which is now able to deliver and share strategic information among staff on University Board and Senate Meetings. In addition email services are becoming more routine across the SUA campuses. Most significant have been activities related to capacity building, especially postgraduate training (KRA 5). Two academic staff received M.Sc.-level training in the UK

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

on VLIR scholarships (completed during 2006), one M.Sc. ­ with partial support from the SUA-VLIR Programme ­ was completed during 2005 in India.A Total of 15 SUA staff attended short courses supported by VLIR on bandwidth and network management in Lusaka, Italy and Belgium. Procurement and importation of goods into Tanzania are key problems that were faced by the ICT team at SUA. The Procurement Act requires rigid procedures to be followed in all public purchases. These procedures are complex and time consuming to the extent that if funds are made available, it might take more than six months for the equipment to be supplied. The other problem caused by this Act is that sometimes the person/company awarded the tender may not necessarily be the best. Improvement in physical infrastructure / ICT-equipment (KRA 6) was noted in both the self assessment and verification activities during the Final Evaluation. Increased numbers of computers were provided by the `Close the Gap' initiative during the project period and its effect was to reduce the computer to student ratio from 1:40 to 1:15. Two computer laboratories with a total of 50 computers had been added and purchased and a power back-up system for the server room, purchased and installed. Intelligent switches running at gigabit levels were purchased and installed as were two new servers for mail management, web management and DHCP services. The relationship between the collaborators at the UA and the SUA ICT team was good and there still remain active links enabling establishment of competence in new computer technologies and rapidly updated software/hardware applications. The assistance provided by Prof Jan De Sitter and colleagues has been much appreciated by both ICT staff and other SUA stakeholders using ICT facilities on campus. Impact of the ICT collaboration with UA counterparts has led to participation of SUA, as a model, in a national computerisation initiative in agricultural institutions and a partner in an East Africa Higher Education Consortium (HEC managed by IDRC) aimed at providing economically viable broadband internet connectivity. This is in preparation for the planned fibre optic cable (`backbone') connection currently being laid between South Africa and East African countries via Africa's east coast (due to be completed in 2010). The computer centre's expertise has supported outreach activities to two schools in the Morogoro Municipality wher computers have been installed through the `Close the Gap' initiative. This is a good example of a direct service to the community (society). The use of SUA's ICT facility by members of the local Morogoro community during SUA's own extracurricular computer education programmes has only been made possible during the life of the SUA-VLIR collaboration. This again demonstrates the benefit of the VLIR initiative in leading to the university being able to serve the local communities in a direct practical manner.

Project 2: Sokoine National Agricultural Library (Phases I and II)

In order to attain its mandate, the Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL) needed to build its capacity in terms of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilities and its human resources. The digitalisation of the library catalogue which was in progress at the end of Phase I was one step towards computerizing other library services and activities such as circulation, acquisition and serial control. Efficient and reliable information services would only be realized upon full computerization of

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

the library. This activity has continued to be the main goal of this project ever since the start of the SUA-VLIR Programme. Because of the VLIR Programme, the library management system is now able to support cataloguing, acquisition and circulation systems within SUA. A total of 60 functional computers are now available in the library and 80% of the library collections are now classified under easily searched electronic catalogue systems. The project managed to produce a library compendium and leaflets/ flyers/guides in both hard and soft copies on the new electronic library services. SNAL has become a model in the country and its staff is frequently being requested to undertake consultancies to assist in library development in other agriculture-based institutions in Tanzania. Two members of library staff from Mekelle University in Ethiopia have now also been trained by the staff of SNAL. New SNAL service procedures were noted and e-cataloguing and instruments for accessing and borrowing were developed during, and as a direct consequence of, the SUA-VLIR Programme. The most important achievement of this project during the ten year Programme was staff development (KRA 5). Eleven staff benefited from long-term training between 2003 and 2006 while two had benefited from similar training during Phase I of the project. Two staff were trained at M.Sc. level and graduated from the University of Dar es Salaam. One Ph.D. staff member was expected to graduate in November 2007 at the University of Dar es Salaam, one postgraduate diploma grade trainee also graduated from the University of Dar es Salaam. A total of five and two staff members were trained at the School of Library Archives and Documentation Studies and the Institute of ICT, respectively, and obtained ordinary diplomas. All Library staff attended in-house training, short courses and conferences to update their professional skills. Another significant activity has been that related to infrastructure management, especially via computerization of library services (KRA 6). The library is now computerised: 67 computers were purchased, manual library catalogues were converted into electronic and the loan system was converted from a manual operation to an electronic one. The SNAL collaboration with the Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universitiet Brussel) and UA has enabled the SUA Library to produce on-line catalogues of at least 80% of its accessions. The remaining 20% are local unpublished reports and conference proceedings which are planned to be incorporated in soft form in the near future.

Project 3: Rodent Research (Phases I and II)

The SUA Pest Management Centre is addressing research which is generally problem-oriented and addresses capacity building (manpower training, equipment, etc.). Rodents cause high losses of crops and are involved as reservoirs of human diseases particularly plague, which cause both morbidity and mortality. These have considerable economic impact and therefore there is need to gain more knowledge of their ecology, taxonomy, distribution and control. The specific objectives were to ensure capacity building in rodent research at the SUA Pest Management Centre; to ensure employment of new scientists with a sound rodentology background; to develop a set of models that will allow the National Rodent Control Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture to predict rodent outbreaks and simulate control actions; to provide recommendations for the prevention of plague transmission from the wild reservoirs to peri-domestic fauna and humans; to provide recommendations for ecologically based management of field

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

rodents causing crop damage; and to facilitate participation in regularly organized training courses organized by rodent control specialists. In short, the objective was to provide necessary materials and human assistance to the Rodent Research Project (RRP) for further development to enable sustainable pest research capacity for the future. This objective has been significantly achieved. This is one of the leading projects because of its uniqueness in focus. The SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC) was set-up a result of the VLIR-SUA cooperation and has attained capacity in research on rodent, ecology, zoonotics and crop loss assessment and is therefore able to carry out studies and provide expertise locally, regionally and internationally when required. The most significant achievements per se have been in Research (KRA 1) and Human Resource Development (KRA 5). Two staff members obtained their Ph.D.'s and three M.Sc.'s through scholarships awarded under the VLIR-UOS Programme. The trained staff has been retained at the Centre. They have been able to produce and accumulate enough publications as a result of the conducive and enabling environment provided by Centre and subsequently the trained staff has been promoted within a short time after meeting the stringent SUA criteria for promotion and recruitment. Twelve researchers (including two from Mekelle University in Ethiopia) have also been trained by the Centre in research, data analysis and pest management practices. The VLIR project support has enabled the purchase of additional equipment and furnishing of the Centre's laboratories (KRA 6). Demonstration and research unit for enhanced food storage facilities has been set-up and is being used for research and extension. Technical support and academic exchange from the North have been singularly effective (KRA 7). Investment in research and developing research capacity has shown tangible research outputs (KRA 1) with at least 38 publications in refereed journals (directly from VLIR support), 15 publications mostly by post-graduate students (as a result of conducive environment at the PMC) supervised by staff at the PMC and one book published in 2006. Besides, five manuscripts have been submitted in referred journals for publication and are under review. Staff at the PMC is involved in active teaching especially at post-graduate level (KRA 2). A book published in 2006 on Management of Selected Crop Pests in Tanzania. Tanzania Publishing House Ltd., Dar es Salaam has become a popular textbook for both undergraduate, postgraduate students and academic staff alike as a reference for both teaching and research. Various extension and outreach activities, including farmers' education on pest control and food storage (KRA 3), were noted and the practical demonstration efforts observed at the Centre. The PMC staff work closely with the central Government and various Local authorities (in particular Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare) on issues of pest management and food security. The Centre is always contracted by this Ministry in those cases when there are outbreaks of plague in various districts of Tanzania. New institutional research procedures and policies related to pest management and food storage have been developed and implemented (KRA 4). Laboratory and/or departmental management inputs on rodents have been developed and are used by staff, students and visitors. The Centre has also produced research protocols, participated in

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

awareness and sensitisation campaigns, targeting farmers in various districts in Tanzania, especially those located in rodent-infested areas. In short, the SCPM has become a centre of excellence for academic research and teaching in pest management national, regionally and internationally.

Project 4: Soil and Water Research (Phases I and II)

The overall objective of this project was to enhance relevant research and to support the technical capacity available at SUA to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management/conservation in mountainous areas of Tanzania. This objective has been satisfactorily achieved. The technical capacity of SUA staff to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management in the Uluguru Mountains has borne many interesting results not only at the academic research level but also at the farm level. Increased production of vegetables and raised household incomes of farming families in the research area were reported as having been generated directly through the project activities The project's research outputs ­ in particular applied research at a rural community level ­ have been significant. The summation of the scientific data collected in the research area is the most important achievement of the Project because it is quite detailed and would have cross-cutting significance within disciplines and in term of subject area coverage. The latter is linked to the fact that the Uluguru Mountains are one of several significant mountain systems in the Eastern Arc Mountains, which spread from Kenya to the south-eastern and central parts of Tanzania, covering several thousand square kilometres and they account for a significant portion of the watershed in Tanzania. New applied research and extension/outreach procedures have been developed and implemented at the project site (KRA 4). Creation of awareness in environmental conservation and management issues has led to farmers practising what they have learned from the research team. This has resulted in increasing farm productivity. As in other projects, important outputs have been activities related to human resource development through post-graduate training (KRA 5). The outputs were: one full Ph.D., one on-going Ph.D., four M.Sc. and 11 B.Sc.scholarships made available through the SUAVLIR Programme and successfully implemented. Activities related to Infrastructure Management (KRA 6) have also resulted in satisfactory results. The GIS laboratory, water ponds, rooftop rain water harvesting sites, long-term soil erosion characterization sites have been laid down and are still operational. It is also important to note that there was active joint supervision of Ph.D.'s and M.Sc.'s in those cases where Flemish students carried out their research work at SUA for their M.Sc. dissertations. The project has now become a platform for an active collaboration between KUL and SUA. Strong ties exist now between the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences of KUL and the Department of Soil Science and the Department of Agricultural Engineering and Land Planning at SUA. There were active staff exchanges as well as student exchanges between Belgium and Tanzania. Communication between the South and North teams on this project was assessed as `excellent'. Vehicles and equipment purchased under VLIR-UOS have allowed the researchers and teachers in Soils and Agricultural Engineering to carry out their field research in a

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

relevant and important rural location in the Uluguru Catchment. The opportunities for postgraduate training in Flemish Universities have enabled the SUA departments concerned to train their staff and carry out research on well-focused topics centred on a selected group of rural populations who are benefiting from increased income generation capacity. Also it is important to note that staff of the Centre have benefited immensely from VLIR-UOS academic activities during their internal promotions within SUA. Interactions between SUA Soils and Agricultural Engineering staff and academic members of staff based in two other VLIR-UOS universities in Ethiopia at Mekelle and Jimma have been particularly active during Phase II. The lesson learned by the SUA team at the research and outreach location in the Uluguru Mountains has led to a direct transfer of experiences and expertise to the terraced hillside situations in Northern Ethiopia.

Project 5: Food Science and Human Nutrition (Phase I only)

The main objective of this project was to carry out postgraduate training and staff development through short term relevant attachments at Flemish universities. The project aimed to train skilled human resources in the field of Food Science and Human Nutrition with the view of promoting Food Security in the country. It was able to develop successfully two M.Sc. course curricula in Food Science and in Human Nutrition. The latter has proved very popular with students and still continues to attract others, many of whom are supported by donors other than VLIR and BTC. The project also purchased equipment necessary for servicing teaching activities through the VLIR-SUA Programme. One member of staff connected to this Programme started a sandwich Ph.D. programme with the University of Ghent. This project, however, was discontinued in 2001 when the projects in VLIR-SUA Cooperation were scaled down to five. This project had a direct positive impact on teaching. Two intended M.Sc. Programmes (Food Science & Human Nutrition) were successfully developed and implemented. They have turned out to be among the most popular postgraduate programmes at SUA, attracting more women even at a time when the university is facing dwindling numbers of applicants. Little activity was produced as far as extension and outreach activities were concerned although satisfactory efforts were reported to have been made on consultancy services to local offices of international organizations like UNICEF and ICRAF. Activities related to human resource development were rated as low/insignificant by the mid-term reviewers. Only one Ph.D. student obtained a scholarship at the University of Ghent in Belgium instead of the two originally planned. Active training links have been developed and strengthened with another VLIR-UOS partner university ­ University of Zambia ­ and the Kigali Institute of Science, Technology and Management in Rwanda (a non-UOS partner institution). As part of this activity, curricula are being strengthened and reciprocal staff teaching exchange is taking place. Activities related to Infrastructure Management were reported and also laboratory equipment and computers were purchased to provide support for the newly developed M.Sc. Programmes. Some opportunities exist to offer consultancies and mobilise additional funds to conduct joint research and provide technical support nationally and regionally.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Project 6: Faculty of Science (Phase I and II)

The overall objective of this project was to strengthen the teaching of basic science components of all degree programmes at SUA through enhancing the academic capacity of the Basic Sciences Unit. The more specific objective was to create high quality teaching environments for large groups of undergraduate students. These objectives have been only partly achieved to the extent that a Faculty of Science (FoS) was established in 1999 and academic capacity building of the Faculty in terms of teaching, research and practical training has been realised. To achieve capacity building, additional laboratory equipment was ordered and some staff was able to be trained under the Programme. Because of the emphasis on teaching, SUA-based research output has been significant (KRA 1 was scored as 4 by the staff ). Many of the listed publications were produced by the Belgian counterparts on results obtained from the Ph.D. and postdoctoral studies carried out by Faculty members in Flanders. A total of 16 papers have been published in international peer reviewed journals (13 of which had a Faculty staff member as senior author), 3 papers in national peer reviewed journals, 37 as full papers in conference proceedings (or in book chapters) and 9 Conference Abstracts. This is a highly commendable publication output from academic staff experiencing heavy teaching loads. Since 1999, the Faculty of Sciences has made an impact on teaching (KRA 2 scored 4 as adjudged by the self assessment). The Faculty now offers common courses for undergraduates following many of the different B.Sc. and BA courses completed on Main Campus in the subsequent years that include Mathematics (MB100), Statistics (MB101), Biometry (MB102) and Communication Skills (SC100). In addition, the Faculty offers Basic Chemistry (PS100), Biochemistry (BS100) and Botany (BS102). It was reported that through the project, laboratory manuals and teaching guides had been developed (although these were not made available for the Evaluation Commission to verify, assess and evaluate). It was reported that student passes on basic courses averaged 20% higher than in 2001 when the mid-evaluation was carried out. Human resource development in the faculty as a result of the SUA-VLIR Programme was relatively important for the development of its current ability to run undergraduate student courses. Two staff members were trained at Ph.D. level at the University of Ghent. One staff member went to Belgium for a short course in research and scientific paper writing and one laboratory technician successfully completed a diploma course at the Olmotonyi Forest Institute in Tanzania. Project support provided by the SUA-VLIR Programme has enabled SUA to purchase additional equipment including a motor coach (primarily for facilitating the transport of personnel and students between the SM and the Main SUA campus and for taking students on field courses) and numerous computers and laboratory essentials required for teaching large student classes (KRA 6 scored as `3'). There is no doubt that the purchase of these items has enhanced the teaching capacity of staff during the growth of the faculty over the last eight years. Substantial renovation work has been carried out using VLIR funds to upgrade lecture halls and teaching laboratories so as large student classes can be accommodated. The Faculty of Science now runs one of the most popular degree programmes at SUA: the B.Sc. in Environmental Sciences and Management. Through this, the Faculty of Science has developed most of its basic infrastructure (with the combined assistance of VLIR-UOS and other donors, particularly NORAD). There was also good staff

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

exchange and one professor from UA was even involved in part-time teaching in the Faculty of Science. Collaboration with University of Antwerp counterparts has led in a steady sustained manner to the development of a new Faculty from a Basic Sciences Unit of 1997 which is now better able to carry out large group undergraduate teaching and a minimal amount of research in the basic and applied sciences. The Faculty development started by VLIR has attracted resources from other agencies, e.g. NORAD, which has funded the erection and stocking of a modern teaching library on the SMC. The VLIR programme has therefore contributed to the capacity of SUA to adapt to new challenges in dealing with high student numbers during Years 1 and 2 of the undergraduate teaching timetable. Vehicle and other major equipment purchased with VLIR funds have enhanced the teaching experiences of staff and students, although severe limitations in teaching space and in general laboratory equipment for teaching large undergraduate student groups are still being experienced. There is no doubt that the research interests and sustained commitment of the two northern partners in FoS, which has been greatly appreciated by both staff and students alike, have helped to enhance the faculty's international academic profile. In fact, research and training activities under the VLIR-UOS Programme have led directly to a proposal being submitted by a team at the Faculty of Science to the competitive VLIR Research Initiatives Call 2008 entitled: `Groundwater characterisation of a coastal aquifer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: mapping groundwater quality zones and developing groundwater management strategies' in collaboration with the University of Ghent.

Project 7: Agricultural Economics and Agri-business (Phase I only)

The objective of this project was to develop training, research and outreach capacity in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business. Regrettably this project had to be discontinued in 2001 when the projects in SUA-VLIR cooperation were being scaled down to five. This project made a direct impact on teaching. In its revised format, the B.Sc. Agricultural Economics Course developed into more demanddriven teaching experience. It has become one of the more popular courses at SUA, attracting substantial numbers of applicants every academic year. A Department Resource Centre was also established and stocked with reference materials and textbooks that are now used actively by both staff and students.

Project 8: Programme Coordination Unit (Phase I and II)

The PCU at SUA coordinated and supported many project-related activities during the life of the Programme, such as the purchasing and maintaining of the vehicles obtained with VLIR funds, employing drivers, accountants and other administrative staff, purchasing an institutional generator, etc. on behalf of all of the Projects in the Programme based at SUA. Had it not been for the presence of the untiring support of the PCU, expenses for these items would have been incurred directly by the Projects themselves. The untiring efforts of the staff manning both the SUA and UA coordination units were much appreciated by all stakeholders and the relative success of the Programme was inevitably due to the hard work (often out of hours) of these individuals.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

At the Phase I/Phase II transition, extra efforts were made by all concerned to avoid the difficulties which had hindered Programme implementation during Phase I. The spirit of compromise and the dedication of individuals which allowed the SUA-VLIR collaboration to function during times of difficulty have been the special features of resilience characteristic of the SUA/UA Partnership and this has in large part been due to the drive and enthusiasm of the coordinating staff in SUA and UA. During Phase II, the combined efforts of both coordination units made it possible for all of the partnership's stakeholders to focus more on academic activities of the programme rather than on difficulties with management and financial apportionment. Implementation of regular internal and external audits also greatly assisted clearer book-keeping and more accurate accounting procedures through better reconciliation of the MACRO (advocated by VLIR but not used even by UA) and HOGIA (used by SUA) book-keeping systems.

cross-cutting issues

The Self Assessment Reports (from South and North Stakeholders) indicated that there are several key cross-cutting issues characterising the SUA-VLIR Programme. There was a general consensus across the projects that there had been substantial human resource capacity building on the SUA-VLIR Programme in terms of people who were trained to Ph.D., M.Sc., and B.Sc. as well as Diploma levels. Research was also very much improved owing to the equipment that was obtained through the collaboration. Due to the corporation between the North and South partners and investments made through the partnership (listed in Annex 15), SUA is now able to do a great deal more research than before the Programme started in 1997. Capacity building and research emerged as the most commonly agreed significant achievement of the SUAVLIR Programme. This has boosted SUA's ability to be able to establish international / regional university networks. The large numbers of investments in equipment and vehicles made by the SUAVLIR Programme underline the emphasis of the VLIR-UOS Partnership Scheme in providing ownership of investments by the university institution in the South. These were substantial and amounted to a total value of 1,122,244 over the 10-year period of the SUA-VLIR UOS Partnership.

assessment of Sua Programme management

The general consensus across projects was that the integration of the VLIR-UOS partnership and the strategic development of SUA were well addressed. This was considered by Stakeholders to be primarily due to the fact that the formulation of the IUC Programme and its Projects were very much in line with the stated mission and vision of SUA to the year 2005 and beyond. The VLIR-UOS partnership represented a good balance between the needs of the South and the academic interests of the North. A gender audit of the SUA-VLIR Programme by the Evaluation Commission indicated that female academics were clearly under-represented both in the project management of the Programme and as direct beneficiaries (i.e. as recipients of training activities). In fact nearly all of the Programme Coordinators and Project Leaders (in both

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

North and South, with the exception of the Faculty of Science team) were male. This reflects the composition of academic staff in both the Flemish Universities and SUA, where females are still under-represented, but the situation is beginning to improve with increased awareness of gender mainstreaming issues. Reflecting on the last 10 years of the SUA management of the VLIR-UOS Programme and the results it produced, the stakeholders themselves suggested what might have been done differently if the Programme was to be started again today. Two of these include: Recognising that the partner University has existing and functional rules and regulations that have to be followed by the local academic institution(s); Possibly putting in place in future programmes, procedures and mechanisms for the roll-over of funds from one fiscal year to a defined point in the following fiscal calendar year; There was an assurance made on several occasions by SUA Senior Management during the final evaluation (and reiterated by the Vice Chancellor even at the SUA-VLIR Closing Ceremony) that the university would play its part in ensuring that every effort will be made to address the issue of sustainability. SUA has already benefited from the holding of an IFS Workshop on Scientific Proposal Writing which was held in May 2007 at which a total of 24 young staff members and teaching assistants worked on improving their IFS proposals. Of the 24 participants, 17 submitted their reworked proposals to IFS and following scientific evaluation, one received funding, four were rejected but a significant proportion of these (over 70%) received positive responses from the IFS Secretariat and are expected to receive funding following resubmission in subsequent rounds of IFS submissions. It was the firm opinion of the SUA top management that the Programme had had a long-term positive capacity building impact at SUA through: Staff development through Ph.D. programmes for the present academic staff Research experience, partly in cooperation with Flemish colleagues Expanding and modernising the library Support to establishing and operation of the internet facility at SUA Acquisition of important equipment for research and teaching projects The University of Antwerp has played an important role in coordinating the high standards of financial accounting and book-keeping required for the SUA-VLIR Programme through the personal efforts of Professor Luc D'Haese. This activity during the last six years of the Programme has led to a great deal of interaction on a continual basis between the Programme Manager based at UA and with other colleagues based in Flemish academic centres. Personal level interactions were very crucial to the attainment of the objectives of the collaboration. A strong host centre (at UA) also very much helped to cushion SUA from delayed disbursements from VLIR. UA even made advance payments to ensure that some funding was at least available for projects at the appointed time. If the latter had not been the case, then the various successes achieved by the SUA-VLIR collaboration would have been much reduced or even jeopardised totally.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

budgetary issues

Originally the programme was planned to begin in September 1997, with the expectations that the Cooperation Agreement would have been signed. However, the Agreement was not signed until November 1997. The implementation of various activities in each component accelerated in 1998, after the disbursement of funds, and then grew gradually throughout the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Apart from the 1997/98 Programme Year, there have been no serious deviations between plans made and the actual implementation of the programme. In the first budget year 1997 - 1998, SUA forfeited a large sum of money that could not be used and accounted for by 30th June 1998 (the end of the budget year), despite the fact that the money had been delivered to SUA (albeit somewhat late). SUA management and the PCU often made quick decisions to utilise funds that were disbursed late before the end of financial year. For example, there were occasions when SUA spent money on items that were not budgeted for, e.g. buying programme vehicles and a generator that serves the whole university, for fear of forfeiting earmarked funds. It was therefore inevitable that some of the budgets and actual allowable expenditure for some planned activities were adversely affected. It was regrettably staff development and collaborative research that suffered the most during Phase I. PriceWaterhouseCoopers concluded in its first audit during late 2002 that the financial statements presented were "a true and fair view of the state of the financial affairs of SUA-VLIR Programme and of its income and expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2002". However, it did note that there were some areas of internal control weaknesses which PWC reported in detail in a Management Letter to SUA Management together with recommendations to remedy those weaknesses. An annual financial audit was thereafter carried out every year of the SUA-VLIR Programme by the same firm and as a result financial procedures tightened to the satisfaction of all concerned and they followed strictly the rules of the local taxation authorities.

overall Programme assessment

The SUA-VLIR Programme (and the specific projects in which it was engaged) has created substantial academic development and capacity building on both the main SUA campus and on the SMC. It has created added value by giving SUA an increasing reputation of being a centre for research and teaching of agriculture and related sciences within both the EA and SADC regions. SUA should now be in a better position than ever before to start attracting more funding for research and teaching by developing demand-driven academic funding proposals and by being better able to deliver consultancies in the regions. The Programme fulfilled a unique type of sustained funding needed where universities in the North work hand-in-hand with those in the South to solve problems that would otherwise be impossible if either party worked alone. The original design and the redesigning every year of projects were carried out through a close collaboration between North and South stakeholders.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

conclusions

Over 4.83 million were provided by VLIR-UOS in support of the SUA-VLIR Programme during the 10-year collaboration. Of this total, ca 70% (3.381 million) was disbursed to SUA in the South and ca. 30% (1.449 million) to Flemish Universities in the North. The latter component supported SUA scholars, project leaders and SUA PCU staff visiting Flanders. The total investments made by VLIR on SUA campus amounted to 1,122,244. This represents a third of the total provision and as such has made a substantial contribution to university capacity building in the South, for which SUA and the Flemish Universities expressed during interviews their shared gratitude. The mean combined coordination costs (South + North) over the 10-year programme ran on average at 19% total funding provision annually which was not too excessive considering the multifaceted character of the SUA-VLIR Programme. The financial and academic support received by project teams at SUA has undoubtedly improved levels of student and staff training at SUA, provided essential ICT infrastructure, improved library facilities, raised academic standards and has undoubtedly led to raised levels of collaborative research activity. The latter now increases opportunities for SUA staff to participate in competitive funding schemes at both regional and international levels. In conclusion, the overall objective of the VLIR-UOS Programme `to enhance the quality of university education in developing countries through the establishment of a durable partnership between Flemish University and selected counterpart institutions in developing countries' has been achieved in the case of SUA, especially in relation to service provision (the ICT and SNAL components), in strengthening research teams (the Rodent and Soil/Water components) and in assisting SUA develop a new science faculty (component 6). Most of the specific objectives have also been realised to a large extent and have enabled the laying of a solid foundation for development of future academic research and teaching activities on the SUA main campus. SUA must take heart from the fact that because it was one of the first VLIR InterUniversity Collaborative Programmes to be formulated, it inadvertently acted as the proverbial `guinea pig'. The university however became a proving ground through which later more improved IUC programmes at other institutions around the developing world were evolved. Its pioneering contribution to the newer South-North university partnership programmes should not therefore go unrecognised.

recommendations

The recommendations of the Evaluation Commission are made on three levels: at the Project level, at the Programme level and at the VLIR Secretariat level.

At the project level, project leaders and team members of the South and North who were involved in the SUA-VLIR programme (1997-2006) are recommended to encourage their colleagues on all of the SUA campuses to consider seriously the possibility of submitting a new proposal to VLIR-UOS for the establishment of a second VLIR-UOS initiative between SUA and Flemish universities. Any new

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

proposal should be designed to encourage the development of stronger inter-departmental and intra-faculty linkages at SUA. The new proposal could involve another university in Tanzania (so developing a multi-campus South-South-North collaboration). The latter could possibly be one of the `younger' newly formed university establishments pursuing agriculture and natural resource academic programmes.

The valuable services to local society created by the SUA-VLIR Programme could be more widely publicised in the popular press and "marketed" more proactively by SUA. This might help to increase the university's own leverage potential in lobbying the URT government to allocate more funds to support its core training and research budgets in the future. SUA should continue to meet the costs of its internet connection, which has been already been met in part during Phase II of the SUA-VLIR programme from VLIR funds. This might be best organised through some form of proportional cost sharing arrangement (e.g. by budget capping) on-campus between all of the Faculties/ Departments/Institutes. Opportunities for networking with other VLIR-UOS universities in the South should be expanded so as to ensure the sustainability and further development of existing academic activities initiated under the VLIR-UOS Partnership Programme. The various donors currently supporting SUA should be invited to hold joint meetings on a regular annual basis with senior SUA management teams so as to coordinate their various inputs into the university in a more integrated complimentary fashion than possibly occurs at present. This avoids donor funds being used to develop multiple arrays of new initiatives when there may be a need to develop one or two critical fundamental facilities as a first step. The internet connectivity issue is one good example of this where concentration of existing donor activity in one key area could make a substantial difference to the way SUA is able to develop and increase viable long-term initiatives, which themselves will foster sustainability, networking and university capacity building in the EA and SADC regions.

During the SUA-VLIR `post-UOS phase', established SUA project teams should be encouraged to find new mechanisms for facilitating inter- and intra-disciplinary (inter-department/faculty) academic activities on-campus so that the university's teaching, research and extension programmes can benefit from added-value initiatives like joint course development and research on cross-cutting subjects like food security, global environmental change and its impacts on rural livelihoods, consultancies and government advocacy missions.

Opportunities for networking with other VLIR-UOS universities in the South and Flemish institutions of higher education in the North should continue therefore to be explored vigorously. This activity will support the sustainable development of existing academic activities started under the SUA-VLIR partnership programme. Networking requires a mixture of individual and institutional commitment. The SUA-VLIR Programme illustrated very well how significant strong personal and professional ties can be in sustaining a network or project when it hits a "bad patch". The resolve and sense of compromise to do the best for the Programme was an outstanding feature of the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The value of the already produced South-South and South-South-North products of the SUA-VLIR programme should not be underestimated in their capacities to enhance SUA and its partners in regional and international collaborations. It would be good to see stronger linkages being developed between SUA and Zambia (in veterinary sciences for example) and between SUA and Nairobi and Moi Universities in Kenya and the University of Zimbabwe in various disciplines linked with natural resource management especially those highlighting emerging complex cross-cutting thematic areas like global climate change and food security. At the VLIR Secretariat level, the External Evaluation Commission wishes to congratulate VLIR on developing a truly worthwhile and valuable university collaborative programme. When compared with many other northern donor-mediated university collaboration programmes, e.g. the Swedish Sida-SAREC university collaboration programme, the UK British Council Higher Education Development Initiative and the Dutch NPT university collaboration model, VLIR-UOS is special in terms of its longevity of sustained support and in its ability to support multiple horizontal and vertical levels of interaction in developing academic capacity on campuses in the South. This support proceeds too in tandem with the goals of bilateral aid aimed at improving the education standards and enabling trained individuals to rise above the poverty threshold in many countries. There are many challenges with programmes like the VLIR-UOS for both the senior management of a recipient institution and the VLIR Secretariat in monitoring their many activities. For senior management on the university campuses, preventing divisions between departments and research teams is a challenge. For example, departments which are included in a long term cooperation where the opportunities are many for strengthening a discipline through scholarships and equipment purchases can be viewed resentfully (or even enviously) by neighbouring groups who feel exclusion rather than involvement in a team (i.e. the campus community) benefiting from a valuable initiative. The long-term NORAD support to SUA is more generally distributed over the campus and is of a more flexible nature (being more akin to `budget' support). VLIR on the other hand supports project-specific activities that are strongly result-orientated and which, to a certain degree, may be selected to match the Flemish universities' own strengths and interests instead of focussing on the immediate needs of the collaborating institution. The Secretariat should be sensitised to the notion that the VLIR-UOS system might be considered by some in the South as an "imposed" form of collaboration instead of a more supportive and proactive one. With an increasing number of IUC Programmes around the world, the VLIR Secretariat may already have become overloaded with tasks and is at full stretch trying to cope with the many IUC Programmes and their associated activities. The VLIR management is no doubt acutely aware of this problem but it should always be in mind that even the shining kettle becomes tarnished with age and overuse and may need polishing through consolidation in quality and not so much proliferation in quantity. VLIR-UOS should take measures to simplify wherever possible its procedural frameworks and mechanisms to avoid the necessity of having to change rules and regulations half way through a schedule of financial disbursements. This, it is appreciated, has already been done to a large extent in the cases of many newer IUC

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Programmes as a direct result of experiences gained from initiatives like the SUAVLIR Programme. It would also be much better if in future VLIR could be more flexible in accepting and allowing the South institutions to use their existing bookkeeping and accounting system for the VLIR programme, instead of having to comply in a very rigid way with the systems that are operational in Belgium. Obviously there are tremendous advantages with being as synchronous as possible as far as financial management is concerned but local internal and external auditing systems have been developed over the years to ensure that funds are used for the purposes for which they were originally intended. VLIR-UOS financial management rules should therefore be of sufficient flexibility to allow the smoother integration of the indigenous rules established by the partner universities in the South and the systems used in the North. External auditing of accounts by local offices of international accountant firms is considered normal practice in most international development assistance situations.

In the future, one might wish that the Partner Programme allow for more flexibility in the structure of an IUC Programme to encourage and support the youngest departments ­ which are often in need of support the most ­ by means of incorporating a structured staff development plan for a department receiving support for academic capacity building. The Faculty of Science project appears to have been an attempt to do achieve this sort of support activity. Some consideration might therefore be given to allocating funds for this type of activity within an IUC Programme on a budget support basis rather than as a project. This is because it is often more difficult to apply quality, quantity and time indicators in a log frame analysis for capacity and resource building than it is to identify specific outputs from a defined piece of research work. The Sida-SAREC model of university collaboration and funding of faculties and universities tends to favour individuals rather than institutions whereas the support of a combination of investments, service provision, staff training as well as research as provided by the VLIR-UOS model means that institutional capacity building is encouraged and supported in a balanced way through identification of those parts of the university which need and would benefit from the kind of support that collaboration with Flemish higher education establishments would be able to provide. The fact that there is a group of individuals on each of the participating campuses in the North and the South who act as coordinators means that there is an important personal focus for the Programme. However, programme coordination per se is unlikely to be as efficient with full-time academic members of staff as it could be with an appointed full-time `professional' manager with experience of university administration. It is understood that the use of professional managers in new VLIR-UOS Programmes has been a relatively good experience. In view of the notable successes of the SUA-VLIR Programme to produce real `stars' or `high points', like the Rodent Research activity in SPMC, the VLIR Secretariat should publicise the outputs of such shining lights using every possible means at their disposal. Since many of the scientists involved in these `high points' are good scientists, efficient communicators and highly respected academics in their own right, they should then be given every chance to act as reviewers and evaluators of other VLIR-UOS programmes based not only in their own region but also

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

in other parts of the world. It could be envisaged that their involvement in such activities might easily act as catalysts for the development of further South-South collaborations. Their experiences would also probably be much appreciated in provision of advice, mentorship and counselling for various members of projects even outside of their own discipline. In this regard it might be worth VLIR considering the involvement within each future evaluation commission a third member who is an academic who has been actively engaged in a previous IUC Programme. Alternatively, wherever possible the second member of an evaluation commission (the regional expert) could be this sort of person.

It is the Evaluation Commission's firm hope that there might be a way in which one part of the research output of the SUA-VLIR Programme could be recognised internationally for its sustained contribution to scientific excellence and development relevance. A notable achievement of the SUA-VLIR Programme has been the high standard and sustained output of the Project 3 Rodent Research teams at SUA and the UA over the 10 years of the SUA-VLIR Programme at Morogoro. The standard of most of the research publications produced in refereed journals are of high class and as such the team (and the VLIR UOS Programme itself!) deserves some form of recognition for this sustained effort of high quality applied research. It is recommended that the VLIR Secretariat approach an appropriate learned society in Belgium (supporting either Natural History, Biological Science, or similar) to see what could be done to nominate the members of both the South and the North teams for a suitable award in recognition of their substantial contribution to international research on rodent taxonomy, biology, ecology and field control. For those universities now "graduating" from UOS programmes within a region, it might be time to support an East Africa/Southern Africa dialogue on how best to form meaningful academic development programmes as the next stage that would build upon the strong elements of the fully fledged VLIR-UOS Partnerships. The VLIR Secretariat could take a leading role in providing the platform (perhaps it could even be called the VLIR-Bridge Initiative?) for these interactions to progress into a further productive stage. This could be initially in the form of a workshop with clearly defined objectives to bring together key players (policy makers, senior university managers, researchers and teachers) who could highlight and focus on complimentary academic areas of mutual benefit. The Bridge programme could be a follow-on "graduate" initiative to the UOS Programme where a consortium of researchers based on at least three campuses would put forward a South-South-North university collaborative programme that will not only support mutually interesting research and teaching (especially in-service and possibly distance learning training) but also act as a conduit through which new generation of undergraduate and postgraduate courses could be developed in emerging thematic areas like global climate change, entrepreneurial land-based industries and food security. This could make many EA and SADC universities more competitive at attracting the best students from not only within but also from outside these regions. This might even help establish an "ivy league" of excellence in the natural resource management field in the two regions. Perhaps more could be made in the future of the personal linkages which develop between Flemish academics that have led already to university development in the

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

South. Many of the academics in the North who are involved in VLIR-UOS initiatives are an important resource (even those experienced academics over 65 years of age) and as such could be encouraged (with possibly some means of minimal support from VLIR) to act as mentors to younger members of staff in the universities of the South (and not always necessarily for those directly involved in a UOS Partnership). The support could be easily delivered through email and other distance learning/ ICT approaches. This would provide a sustainable means of support to the capacity of young scientists to manage teaching and research when they are again on their own (perhaps in some degree of intellectual isolation) in their university following a period of training overseas. Such initiatives could reduce brain drain scenarios which are still occurring in many countries that are facing economic pressures causing technical and academically trained staff to leave low paid university positions for better salaried positions in the commercial sector.

The complex nature of a ten year south ­ north university collaboration like that of SUA-VLIR raises many observations and issues which the Evaluation Commission has tried to elaborate and to comment upon in its evaluation report. As evaluators, we would recommend that a review be made by the VLIR Secretariat of the existing KRA criteria for the Self Assessment. These need to take better account of broad categories of `projects', particularly those involving service provision and staff training. It could be envisaged that these types of projects might have a different format of Self Assessment to one used for a specialised research project. The evaluation structure is a good start in that it should eventually allow for statistical comparisons to be made of the impacts made by different VLIR-UOS initiatives in different parts of the world. But the assessment procedures still need adjustment and increased clarity. The latter could also avoid some of the misunderstandings by respondents about what kind or level of information input is required on the data formats. Perhaps a list of guidelines for filling in Self Assessment forms might allow for adequate levels of explanation to be made to take account of the variance in responses provided by different project teams at SUA. Variation in inputs to the questionnaire Format 1 was problematic during the current evaluation. It also appears as though there is a great deal of repeated information even in formats being used in the same evaluation exercise. For instance few of the project teams produced a SWOT analysis of their part of the SUA-VLIR Programme. It also appears as though there is a great deal of repeated information even in formats being used in the same evaluation exercise and it would be extremely useful if in future evaluations that the different project teams could use a standard format for listing their scientific publications since during the current exercise there were many different formats produced even from within the same project team. In summary, the External Evaluation Commission congratulates the Belgian DGDC, VLIR and all of the SUA-VLIR-UOS stakeholders in showing a high degree of perseverance and mutual sense of compromise in overcoming the difficulties faced during the early stages of the SUA-VLIR UOS Partnership. A special mention should be again made of the untiring inputs made by the VLIR Secretariat and the members of the Programme's Coordination Units at SUA and UA for managing to oversee the successful completion of a full 10-year programme of South-North university collaboration, despite facing many challenges having to deal with all of its different actors representing so many contrasting individual needs and aspirations.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1

Tanzania: its National Policy Framework and Priorities

The United Republic of Tanzania (URT) is a sovereign state that came into being in April 26, 1964 after the union of two sovereign states Tanganyika (now mainland Tanzania) and Zanzibar (which is made up of the islands of Unguja and Pemba).1 URT has a democratically elected Government headed by a President and is governed by a national Constitution. Since independence, Tanzanians have been ruled by four governments: those of President Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere (1961-85), President Ali Hassan Mwinyi (1985-95), President Benjamin W. Mkapa (October 1995-2005) and since 2005, of the incumbent President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete. The URT has a population of approximately 37 million. The country is still poor with a GNP per capita of about US$ 230. The life expectancy at birth is 43.3 years (44.1 years for women) (United Republic of Tanzania, 2004; 1999). The country covers approximately 945,000 square km, of which 883,000 is land (881,000 in the mainland and 2,000 in Zanzibar) and 62,000 sq km is inland water (lakes and rivers). About 46 per cent of the total land area is arable, with a rich potential for agricultural productivity. The terrain of the country varies, as does the climate. The coastal region consists of plains, the central area a plateau, and the northern and southern regions marked by highlands. The climate varies from tropical along the coast to temperate in the highlands. On average the country gets an annual rainfall of 100 cm (falling as short rains between October-November and long rains between March-May). The country has a wide range of mineral deposits including gold, diamonds, tin, iron ore, uranium, phosphates, coal, gemstones, nickel, and natural gas. In addition, the country has a substantial hydropower potential. Agriculture is the leading sector of the economy of Tanzania and accounts for over half of the GDP and export earnings. The government together with its development partners have committed itself to strategically address the issues of increased agricultural productivity; food security; marketing of inputs and outputs; research, training and extension; and the role of public and private sectors. Tourism has become recently one of the fastest growing sectors in Tanzania: the country is host to the snow peak of Mt. Kilimanjaro, the vast Serengeti National Park and a multitude of beautiful beaches along its Indian Ocean coastline. Over 80% of the poor are in rural areas and their livelihood depends on agriculture. Moreover about 80% of the population live and earn their living in rural areas with agriculture as their mainstay of their living (United Republic of Tanzania, 2001; 2004). The government has responded by developing in a participatory manner the Tanzania Vision 2025 (United Republic of Tanzania, 1999; 2004) which states: "The Tanzania of 2025 should be a nation imbued with five main attributes: high quality livelihood; peace, stability and unity; good governance; a well educated and learning society; and a competitive economy capable of producing sustainable growth and shared benefits".

1 Tanganyika became a sovereign state on December 9 1961, and Zanzibar became independent from the United Kingdom on December 19, 1963.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

To realize this vision, the government of the URT has put in place relevant policy frameworks. These include the following: The Rural Development Policy (2004); The National Economic Empowerment Policy (2004); The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (2001); The National Poverty Eradication Strategy (1988); The Republic of Tanzania has been one of the more stable countries in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of politics, governance and transparency in managing public resources. Kiswahili has been used effectively as a national language and the language of business, thus enhancing the cohesiveness of the country and creating a strong feeling of nationhood among Tanzania people.

Context of general and university education in the United Republic of Tanzania

The URT realises that quality education is the pillar of national development. It is through quality education that Tanzania is able to create a strong and competitive economy that can effectively cope with the challenges of development. In order to empower all would-be students to pursue higher studies, the Government has put in place a student's loan scheme, which is intended to be accessible to all. Notwithstanding this facility, and the fact that both research and postgraduate training are high on the URT agenda, it must be noted that the government's contribution to research and postgraduate training is still relatively low. Evidence of this fact is clear: out of a total of ca.TShs 1.2 billion (TShs 1,000 approximately equivalent to 1.5 euro) which SUA allocates in its annual budget to research, almost 98 percent of the funding for this is derived directly from external donors. It is therefore regrettable that on a nationwide basis, funding of research (on the agricultural and other land-based disciplines) by the URT government within Tanzanian Universities continues to be of a relatively low priority and it must be said at significant variance with the objectives of its Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (2001). Education in Tanzania has four levels, namely: Basic or first level education of pre-primary (2-3 years), primary (7 years); Secondary or second level education that includes Ordinary Level (4 years) and Advanced Level (2 years); Tertiary or third level education including programmes and courses offered in non-university and university higher education institutions, and Various forms of informal adult education/in-service training; Higher education is organised into two levels: non-university and university. A higher education institution is so identified by its mission, objectives and curricular orientation. The number of higher education institutions has grown from one at the time of independence in 1961 to 30 in 2002. Of the 30, six are recognised as public universities while six are recognized as private universities, seven as university colleges and eleven as non-university tertiary level institutions. It is worth noting that in the spirit of expanding opportunities for higher education, many of the existing higher education institutions (mainly the private ones) were established after 1996. This was in response to the URT government's decision to liberalize the establishment, ownership and management of higher education institutions. The Higher Education Accreditation Council

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

(HEAC)2 of Tanzania was established by the government to oversee this expansion and awards a Certificate of Full Registration when deemed of satisfactory academic status. In summary, apart from the University of Dar es Salaam and SUA, which have existed since 1961 and 1984, respectively, the other universities have been founded within the last 10 years. The newest public Universities are Mzumbe University and the State University of Zanzibar. By July 2005, two additional private institutions, the Zanzibar University and Kilimanjaro Christian Medical College had been awarded HEAC Certificates of Full Registration. Besides these two, three others had been inspected and have received HEAC Letters of Interim Authority and six others have been issued HEAC Certificates of Provisional Registration. This is a perhaps a reflection of the fact that the demand for higher education in Tanzania has increased steadily over the last decade. Once approved and registered by the HEAC, the selection of students into public or private higher education institutions in the country becomes the responsibility of individual institutions. The Belgian Government through the BTC Tanzania-Belgium Local Scholarships Programme provides each year local scholarships for Masters level study at national universities in Tanzania. For the Academic Year 2007/2008 a total of 50 applications were funded for subjects ranging from Agri-business to Public Health and in the natural sciences from Agriculture to Environmental Management and Wildlife Management. Many of the recipients will in fact be undertaking their postgraduate courses at universities like SUA. From the statistics of the Local Scholarship Programme 2003-2006, provided by the Belgian Embassy in Dar es Salaam, there were a total of 219 scholarships, 113 of which were taken up by women. The BTC also supports a Mixed Ph.D. Scholarship Programme for study in Belgium Universities and other institutions there of Higher Education. In 2007/2008 a total of four Ph.D. scholarships are being provided by the BTC on a competitive basis and the emphasis of the programme is to support capacity building in the country.

2 HEAC has hitherto been replaced by TCU (Tanzanian Commission for Universities) since 1995.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

2

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) was established out of the former Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Science of the University of Dar es Salaam on 1 July 1984 by Act of Parliament No. 6. The SUA (Main Campus) is situated 3.0 km from the centre of Morogoro town, which is ca. 200 km west of Dar es Salaam. The Vision of the university is: "To become a centre of excellence and a valued member of the global academic community in agriculture and other related fields, with emphasis on implementing practical skills, entrepreneurship, research and integration of basic and applied knowledge in an environmentally friendly manner" (SUA, Sept 2005a, pp. xiv). The University is currently made up of four campuses: the Main Campus, the Solomon Mahlangu Campus in Morogoro; the Olmotonyi Campus in Arusha, and the Mazumbai Campus in Lushoto. The Main Campus has a total land area of 2,376 ha. It is situated at an altitude of 500 - 600m above sea level receiving an annual rainfall in the range 600 - 1,000 mm. This campus has also been endowed with three parcels of land on the ridges of the Uluguru Mountains at the Morning Side, Towero and Luhungu sites totalling 29.5 ha. The Solomon Mahlangu Campus is situated 11 km to the Northwest of Morogoro Municipality with a total area of 840 ha. Mazumbai Forest Reserve, which is situated in Lushoto, is a natural forest with a total area of 320 ha and is used for student training and research purposes. Moshi University College of Cooperatives and Business Studies became a University College of SUA in May 2004. As per its mandate, SUA has four Faculties and seven Directorates/Institutes as indicated below. Faculties: Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Conservation, Veterinary Medicine and Science. Directorates/Institutes: The Institute of Continuing Education, The Development Studies Institute, Directorate of Research and Postgraduate Studies, The Computer Centre, The Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL), The Centre for Sustainable

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Rural Development (SCSRD), and The SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC). Currently these academic centres offer 16 undergraduate and 17 postgraduate degree programmes, leading to the awards of B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D's in various fields as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: SUA Academic Courses and Awards

undergraduate training

B.Sc. Agriculture (General) B.Sc. Agronomy B.Sc. Home Economics and Human Nutrition B.Sc. Horticulture B.Sc. Animal Science B.Sc. Food Science and Technology B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering B.Sc. Agricultural Education and Extension B.Sc. Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness B.Sc. Forestry B.Sc. Wildlife Management B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and Management Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine (BVM) B.Sc. Biotechnology and Laboratory Sciences B.Sc. Aquaculture B.Sc. Rural Development. Bachelor of Tourism and Management B.Sc. Computing and Information B.Sc. Education B.Sc. Range Management

Postgraduate training: m.Sc. and Ph.d.

M.Sc. Agriculture Science M.Sc. Agricultural Education and Extension M.Sc. Agricultural Economics MBA Agribusiness M.Sc. Soil Science and Land Management M.Sc. Agricultural Engineering M.Sc. Tropical Animal Production M.Sc. Food Science M.Sc. Human Nutrition M.Sc. Forestry M.Sc. Wildlife Management M.Sc. Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture Master of Veterinary Medicine (MVM) M.Sc. Preventive Medicine (MPVM) M.Sc. Land Use Planning and Management M.Sc. Irrigation Engineering and Management MA Rural Development Ph.D. offered in most disciplines

The Institute of Continuing Education offers short term in-service programmes to field and operational staff as well as training and extension services to farmers and community leaders. The Development Studies Institute acquaints undergraduate students with the challenges of development today and how to overcome them, while the Faculty of Science offers common science courses. Student enrolment at SUA has been growing steadily since its establishment. For the past ten years the undergraduate students enrolment has grown from 932 (700 male, 232 female) in 1996/1997 to 2,260 (1,626 male, 634 female) in 2005/2006 (SUA, Nov. 2005c). The current number of registered postgraduate students is 394. The gender gap between males and females enrolled at the university: 68% of students are male, while 32% are female. Undergraduate students enrolment by specialization and gender from 1996/97 to 2005/06 academic years is shown in Annex 6. SUA developed its first Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP) around the start of the Millenium. The CSP to the year 2005 and beyond was a long-term plan aimed at

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

facilitating the university's operations in the 21st century with a clear vision of its present and future roles in the light of rapid global changes (SUA, Nov. 1997). The emerging and new internal, national, regional and global challenges necessitated the revision of the CSP to the year 2005 to bring it in line with more current realities. This revised CPS (2005 - 2010) puts more emphasis on capacity development, quality assurance and outreach activities. It focuses on the university's core functions of teaching, research and public service (SUA, Sept. 2005a). The Evaluation Commission noted that it is encouraging that in 2005/06, a total of Tsh 115,222,000 was raised by the University from its charges for services such as research, consultancy and production activities (during the same period a total of Tsh 69,564,877 had been provided by the URT government). To perform the core functions effectively, the management of SUA and various departments have collaborated and worked closely with the URT government and also with its international partners like NORAD, JICA, Flemish Universities/VLIR, DANIDA and WWF who have been investing and supporting various programmes/ projects at the university. In 2005/06, the URT Government contributed towards 61% of the university's total budget while donors contributed 39% (SUA, 2006). Between July 2005 and June 2006, Norway through its PANTIL (Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources Transformation for Improved Livelihoods) programme provided 79% of all donor funds received by SUA for that year followed by donors based in Denmark (5.7%), Belgium (4.7%) and the USA (3.7%). Over the last twenty years, SUA has received a high level of donor support. Major donors besides VLIR have been: NORAD, JICA, DANIDA, DFID, CIDA, FINIDA, SIDA and USAID. In fact, SUA is rated relatively high to donors in terms of quality and relevance, especially within the SADC region. The M.Sc. Agricultural Engineering programme has attracted students from the whole East African region. The academic staff members at SUA are also in high demand as lecturers and external examiners at other universities in the region, as well as for consultancies. In the last three years the number of applicants to SUA has gone down by almost 50 per cent. This is due to the fact that there are many new additional universities (institutions of higher learning) in the country who compete with SUA for school leavers. Besides, SUA is largely associated and perceived by many school levers as an institution of higher learning that offers only agriculturally oriented courses. To address the challenge of dwindling student numbers and the above perception, the SUA management set up a task force in 2007 to review the existing academic programme with an aim of restructuring its teaching programmes so as to attract more students. The draft report of the task force has already been produced and during February 2008 is being studied by SUA stakeholders.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

3

The VLIR University Partner Programme (VLIR-UOS)

VLIR is the acronym for Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (Flemish Interuniversity Council) established in 1976. Its mandate is to promote dialogue and cooperation between the six Flemish universities. These are: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven - KUL), Universiteit Gent (University of Ghent - UG), Universiteit Antwerpen (University of Antwerp - UA), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Universiteit Limburg Centrum (Limburg University Centre - LUC) and Katholieke Universiteit Brussel. Apart from general functions according to the mandate, a specific task for VLIR relates to the Flemish universities' cooperation with universities in developing countries, the so-called IUC Partner Programme. This is an inter-university cooperation programme of the Flemish universities, focused on the institutional needs and priorities of partner universities in the South. The IUC programme is in principle demand-oriented, and seeks to promote local ownership through the full involvement of the partner both in the design and implementation of the programme. The programme relates to only a few carefully selected partner universities in the South, hoping that synergy, added value and greater institutional impact can be achieved through the different IUC projects located in the same partner university. Support is directed towards the institutional development of the partner university, the improvement of quality of local undergraduate and postgraduate education, and the encouragement of south-south academic and research linkages. Each partnership consists of different projects aiming at maximum institutional impact, apart from education and research-oriented projects. The partnership may also include some projects aimed at improving the organisation, administration and management of the university as a whole. The identification of the fields of cooperation is in principle demand-based, but demands can obviously only be met to the extent that Flemish expertise is available. Each partnership consists of a coherent set of interventions geared towards the development of the teaching and research capacity of the university, as well as its institutional management. The VLIR-UOS accepted as the core requirements for its IUC Programme the following: long-term cooperation: in order for institutional cooperation to be effective, long-term partnerships need to be developed. Institutional partnerships are to cover a period of at least ten years; orientation on the institutional needs and priorities of the partner universities in the South: donor support should start from the needs and priorities of the partner institution. Linkage projects and programmes need to fit well into the local policy environment of the Southern partner institution and therefore should respond to the priorities that have been identified by these institutions themselves. It is believed that only linkages based on projects to which the

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

partner university attaches high priority, will be sustainable in the long run; ownership: apart from their required participation in the process of project identification, partner institutions from the South also need to be fully involved in the process of implementation at all levels. A lack of strong involvement from beneficiary institutions has a negative impact on the successful implementation as well as on the sustainability of cooperation projects; concentration: concentrating efforts in a limited number of partner institutions in the developing world leads to apparent advantages in terms of programme management, but concentration is also meant to allow for synergy between different projects of the same linkage in order to create an added value in terms of the expected broader institutional impact of the intervention; donor coordination: the VLIR-UOS is convinced of the usefulness of donor coordination.

The VLIR-UOS programme for IUC aims at the provision of substantial support to a limited number of carefully selected partner universities in the developing world. This support is geared towards: the institutional development of the partner university (i.e. to fulfil its role effectively in society)3; the improvement of the quality of local education; the development of local postgraduate education in the South; the encouragement of south-south linkages. Each partnership is broad in orientation, and includes the following: different components (projects) make up the partnership; all projects aim at a maximum of institutional impact; the activities which are organised in the context of the partnership can involve all constituent parts of the university; apart from direct support to the improvement of education and research the partnership can also contain projects which are aimed at improving the organisation, the administration and the management of the university as a whole; the identification of the fields of cooperation within the partner programme is in principle based on the partner university's demands; these demands obviously can only be met in so far that the required expertise can be provided by the Flemish universities (demand-driven approach); each partner programme consists of a coherent set of interventions geared towards the development of the teaching and research capacity of the partner university, as well as its institutional management.

It is important to note that the original objective of the IUC Programme at the time the SUA-VLIR Partnership Programme was initiated in 1997 was stated as: `to enhance the quality of university education in developing countries through the establishment of a durable partnership between Flemish University and selected counterpart institutions in developing countries'.

3 Added by the Evaluation Commission to express current emphasis by VLIR on the meaning of `Institutional Development': i.e., not only physical infrastructure and training of personnel but also ability of the institution to interact with its neighbouring communities so that it can be of service to society.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The immediate objectives of the Programme were: `to strengthen the institutional capacity of local partner institutions, to integrate the new programme into overall institutional development plans, to support postgraduate degree programmes and to stimulate regional cooperation and South-South networking with universities in neighbouring countries'. The Partner Programme model implies 10 years (2 x 5 years) institutional cooperation between the Flemish universities and a limited number of carefully selected partner universities in the developing world. For a cooperation programme with a full-fledged partner university, the annual budget is gradually reduced (85, 75 to 50 % of a full budget in years 8, 9 and 10) of the cooperation. The annual budget ceiling per partner university is currently (in 2008) 745,000. While the partner programme represents a 5-year framework, actual funding is based on the approval of annual activity programmes with no possibility to roll-over possible balances to the following budget year. The IUC management system is based on the following division of tasks: VLIR is responsible for the programming - including the selection of partner universities -, monitoring and evaluation of the overall programme. VLIR is accountable to the Belgian government; the implementation of a partner programme is delegated to a Flemish university which functions as the coordinating university in Flanders. The Flemish university of the VLIR appointed Flemish coordinator functions as the coordinating university in Flanders. Administratively, the university of the Flemish coordinator and the partner university were responsible for the day-to-day management of the programme implementation based on an agreement signed by the Flemish coordinating university and the VLIR; the university of the Flemish coordinator and the partner university have the responsibility to jointly manage the implementation of the partner programme and the constituent activity programmes based on an agreement signed by the Flemish coordinating university, the partner university and the VLIR; the partner university also has to nominate a local coordinator who functions as the key responsible person from local side; at the level of the partner university, a full time professional manager is also usually appointed in order to support the local coordinator, usually being an academic charged with numerous other responsibilities, carry out the various management duties associated with the implementation of a complex programme; a local steering committee is established in the south and in the north to coordinate the implementation of a partner programme. On an annual or bi-annual basis, depending upon need, both committees hold a Joint Steering Committee Meeting ( JSCM). In 2003, VLIR-UOS introduced the PCM-methodology in all VLIR-UOS-funded activities. This approach called for programmes set up after that date to have a much more focused approach supported by the formulation of a logical framework matrix spanning a 5-year period and including measurable indicators.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

In principle the cooperation with a partner university covers a period of maximum ten years: two time blocks of five years each. For each time block of five years a partner programme is to be drafted. Objectives have to be defined within a timeframe of five years. Every three to five years the cooperation with a partner will be evaluated. Each year at least three partner universities will be evaluated. On the condition of positive outcome of the evaluation exercise, a partner university can continue its cooperation for another five years. In case of a negative outcome, the cooperation can be stopped, either immediately or after the first block of five years. Each evaluation is followed the next year by a control to check whether the results of the evaluation have been followed-up. Each evaluation can be followed by changes to the cooperation programme, both in terms of content and of budget. In terms of the Phase I and Phase II partner programme emphasis, the intention is as follows: - Phase I is meant to focus on capacity building - Phase II is meant to focus on consolidation, application and phase-out

Following a period of 10 years of collaboration, limited funding is provided during a phase out process. More importantly however, is the possibility of IUC partner universities to submit proposals under the so called "IUC Research Initiative Programme (RIP)". In this way, support will be provided for quality research proposals undertaken by members of former IUC project teams. The modalities of this fund are currently being elaborated. The support facilities explained underneath are funded by VLIR-UOS for the benefit of all ongoing and phasing out IUC partner universities.

Competitive funds

Apart from an annual budget, the partner programmes may respond to calls by VLIR to submit proposals under the ICT and North-South-South Cooperation Programme (NSSCP). Proposals are appraised on a competitive basis. Under the ICT Fund second hand computers are provided to the partner universities free of charge within a certain conceptual framework. Under the NSSCP, two or more IUC partner universities may join in developing a proposal that includes the involvement of a Flemish academic and builds upon the achievements of the partner programmes within the framework of South-South collaboration.

International Foundation for Science (IFS)

With VLIR activities, IFS is usually able to fund deserving research proposals submitted by young researchers based within any eligible academic units of the IUC partner universities that are recommended following the usual IFS scientific reviews. However, IFS may have occasionally in any given round of grant awards (made twice a year), insufficient funds to support all of its recommended applications. In such cases VLIR, by agreement, can assist IFS in supporting those grants awarded specifically to VLIR-UOS applicants. IFS is also involved in holding its workshops on "Scientific Proposal Writing" on university campuses supported by the VLIR-UOS programme. This enables younger members of the staff and postgraduate students in these universities to compete for IFS grants and so obtain funding for their research thereby adding value to the sustainability of VLIR-UOS support.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

International Network for the Availability of Scientif ic Publications (INASP)

VLIR is funding INASP in order to develop curricula for training on bandwidth management. Under this initiative, the IUC partner universities benefit from training at various levels in order to optimise available bandwidth.

Cross cutting initiatives

Cross cutting initiatives are workshops, training activities, study visits and similar activities on matters of common interest in which participants of IUC partner universities can participate. With reference to the tables below, an outline of the programme cycle at the level of responsibilities during the different programme phases and the overall timeframe are shown in Annex 5. Since 2003, the new partnerships have differed with the earlier partnerships (like SUA-VLIR). These differences relate mainly to the following: programme and project design is based on the logical framework approach; a more coherent programme focus is developed with an in-built opportunity for an increased synergistic programme approach; the introduction of a full-time programme management position at the level of the partner university; simplification of some financial arrangements (i.e. a lump-sum basis rather than a quarterly disbursement) and compensations that are much more oriented towards the academic units that are providing actual support and leadership. Furthermore, VLIR-UOS has been developing more indicator-based programmes and project files that elaborate upon the indicators developed earlier, and introduce the following additional dimensions: a three-layered approach whereby the projects fit into the programme that fits into the partner institutions that fits into a country context; indicators that relate to broad-based managerial issues; an evaluation model that takes the log-frame as a reference. In the case of SUA and some other universities most of these different approaches were taken into account when preparing the Phase II partner programme. Nevertheless, a full-time programme management position was only introduced by UNZA, and all three universities held on to the "old" financial guidelines instead of the lump-sum based financial compensations.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

4

Elaboration of the SUA-VLIR Partnership Programme

During the 1980's, before the VLIR-UOS link was established between Flemish Universities and the Sokoine University of Agriculture, there were individual staff members at SUA who were in contact with Flemish academic counterparts as part of the Tanzania-Belgium Joint Research Project on `Rodents as Disease Carriers and Crop Destroyers'. Professor Walter Verheyen, a prominent taxonomic expert of the African Rodent fauna based at the University of Antwerp, was leader of the project from 1986 to 1989. Through this association with Sokoine grew the concept of a more formal academic linkage between the emerging academic centre at SUA and the Flemish Universities. Together with Professor Bukheti S. Kilonzo and Professor Robert S. Machang'u of the RRC, Professor Walter Verheyen was instrumental in pioneering the establishment and growth of the SUA-VLIR Programme during Phase I (1997 ­ 2002). In September 1996, two representatives from the SUA top management attended `The First Conference on Institutional University Cooperation with Counterpart Institutions' in Belgium. According to the minutes of this meeting, three key areas for a potential Programme were tentatively agreed upon: Computer Network and connecting SUA to the Internet; Strengthening the Sokoine National Agricultural Library; and Development of Research Capacity, with focus on rodent research, soil, water and land management However, in the minutes from subsequent meetings in the SUA Council Chamber, the list of priorities was extended to include also: Development of postgraduate degree programmes in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition; Strengthening the Basic Sciences Unit; Support of postgraduate programmes in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business The original selection of SUA as a partner in IUC collaboration was based on the criteria then valid for selection. Amongst other things the demand-driven aspect of collaboration was focussed upon, as were the number of scientific fields in which mutual interest could give rise to fruitful collaboration. The all-important potential for institutional strengthening was considered present at SUA after visits and several discussions between then key players. Also, the fact that historical ties between SUA on the one hand and UA on the other had been in place for a number of years already considerably aided the early format of IUC collaboration. It is important to stress that the present VLIR-UOS model of two five-year periods for each partner institution was not in operation at the time Phase I of the SUA-VLIR Programme was being elaborated.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

A tentative budget was US$ 1.5 million per year, to be divided equally between SUA and UDSM (this university was however later omitted from the Phase II partnership organisation)4. A Programme application was forwarded in February 1997 to VLIR, according to the above arrangement along with the given time-frame and overall budget. While there was usually only one southern Partner University in a VLIR-UOS Partner programme, there were six Flemish universities eligible for participation. The model of cooperation and coordination designed by VLIR is one in which a single Flemish university assumes the role of a coordinator (Programme Manager) on behalf of the six universities in each VLIR-UOS programme. The University of Antwerp was assigned this responsibility in the case of SUA, and the programme application form was signed by the Vice Chancellors of UA and SUA. For the elaboration of the different phases of the Programme, stakeholders of both the IUC Phase I and II Partner Programmes were divided into two broad categories: The Northern Stakeholders and The Southern Stakeholders. The same stakeholders were involved in the formulation of both the Phase I and Phase II (with the exception of the UDSM partners). Stakeholders at SUA held discussions at project/departmental level and passed their ideas onto their respective Northern counterparts who also discussed these ideas among themselves. Objectives were then developed and firmed up. In June 2002, a joint Project Cycle Management (PCM) Workshop was held at SUA. This workshop had stakeholders from both the North and the South. Southern stakeholders who took part included the SUA-VLIR Programme Coordination Unit, SUA Project Leaders, top SUA management, Directorate of Postgraduate Studies, a Bursar's representative, representatives from the Regional Director of Agriculture and Livestock, a representative from an NGO and CBO undertaking conservation work in part of the Uluguru Mountains. The Northern stakeholders included the Flemish Project Leaders (and members of the administration of their Universities), academic and administrative staff of the Co-ordinating University, i.e. University of Antwerp, the Flemish Coordinator, the IUC UA Administrator, the IUC UA financial manager (accountant) and VLIR. The Southern stakeholders included the SUA Project Leaders, SUA top management, the Directorate of Research and Postgraduate Studies, the Bursar, Local Coordinator, SUA staff and students, Internet and Library users both within and outside SUA, Morogoro conservation groups (government, community based organisations (CBOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and farmers around the Uluguru Mountains.

Programme Structure Phase i

The Programme components of Phase I consisted of the following projects:

Development of Facilities for Internet Connection (Computer Centre) Strengthening of the Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL) The Ecology, Biodiversity and Taxonomy of Rodents and their Parasites Soil and Water Management in the Uluguru Mountains

4 NB. The circumstances surrounding the latter were mentioned once during the briefing of the International expert in Brussels but not elaborated upon in any detail at any other time during the mission of the Evaluation Commission. This part of the IUC partnership was therefore not included in the current evaluation.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Postgraduate Training and Staff development in Food Science and Human Nutrition Strengthening of the Basic Sciences Unit (and raising it to a sufficient status to become a Faculty within the university) Capacity Building in Agricultural Economics and Agri-business

A tripartite cooperation agreement regarding the SUA Partner Programme between VLIR, UA and SUA was signed by the respective top management, as well as the Flemish and SUA coordinators, in Brussels on 21st of November 1997. In the agreement, the two universities assumed their respective roles as equal partners with joint responsibilities towards VLIR, except that: UA had the responsibility to mobilise and coordinate participation from other Flemish universities in order to implement the approved programme, and UA would receive from VLIR the periodic allocation for both institutions for further transfer of the financial share of the South to SUA. UA should also submit accounts for expenditure at both the North and South ends on both a quarterly and an annual basis. It was stated in the regulations that each Partner Programme should be subject to evaluation every 3 ­ 5 years of operation. For 2001, the SUA programme was one of the first four to be selected for evaluation. Phase I of the SUA-VLIR ended on 31 March 2003.

Programme Structure Phase ii

The new Partner Programme (Phase II) followed the Mid-Term Review (VLIR, Nov. 2001) and the subsequent approved programme commenced on 1 April 2003. Project Leaders at SUA and Flanders and other stakeholders deliberated on which Projects to continue and the contents (roughly) of the future projects, taking into account the limitations (i.e. what activities should be dropped). It was finally decided that two Projects, Food Science and Nutrition, and Agri-business should not be continued in Phase II (details in Annex 7). There were four main reasons for this: (1) both had scored low in the Mid-Term Evaluation (2) both components were mainly trainingbased (curriculum development and training of students) and (3) there was an apparent lack of interest of the SUA staff and their UA counterparts involved in the two projects (i.e. communication between the PLs and Promoters was rather low key) and (4) that it was felt by all concerned that with a scheduled 25% reduction in the IUC Programme's budget, there was too little funding for all of the original seven projects to continue. This decision was endorsed by the SUA Local Steering Committee as well as by the senior management at SUA. In June, 2002, this decision was later endorsed by the Joint Steering Committee Meeting comprising stakeholders from Belgium and SUA. Problem trees, overall objectives and specific objectives for each project were arrived at during a joint PCM Workshop held at SUA in June 2002. The decision over the Budget Distribution for Phase II was made by Project Leaders at SUA. It was felt justifiable at that time that the Faculty of Science was to receive the largest share (23%) followed by the Coordination office (21%) while the remaining four Projects were to each receive 14% of the funds. The Faculty of Science continued receiving more funds because of the need to develop the Faculty on the neighbouring Solomon Mahlangu campus.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The main outputs of the workshop were: a description of a new Partner Programme, a justification of the selection of the Phase II Projects (and of the dropping of Phase I Projects) and a justification of the budget distribution over the respective Phase II Projects. To come up with the new Partner Programme, stakeholders at both SUA and Flanders were involved in its formulation. As early as December 2001 SUA had started soliciting views from the Southern stakeholders as to the shape of Phase II. SUA was guided by resolutions of the IUC Policy Meeting of May 2001 at which it was stated, among other things, that future cooperation had to be of mutual interest rather than just demand-driven. It was also resolved that the projects would benefit if there were fewer than was currently the case. On training, it was directed that funding available for training would be very limited, unless it was training for capacity building in the Project (training of SUA Staff ). Funding of curricula would also not be supported. It was further decided that Projects should refrain from investing in expensive items during Phase II of this IUC cooperation. Another guiding tool was the result of the mid-term evaluation. Recommendations put forward by the Evaluation Commission were given due concern between the months of December 2001 and May 2002,

objectives of Phase i

The objectives of the activities planned for Phase I were as follows: To equip the University with means for rapid acquisition, development, application, and dissemination of information in the field of agriculture and related land resource utilisation sectors using modern information technology. To enhance capacity of SNAL to provide educational information through modern technology in Library and Information services. To provide necessary materials and human assistance to RRP for further development to enable sustainable pest research capacity for the future. To enhance, by conducting research, the technical capacity at SUA to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management / conservation on mountainous areas of Tanzania To train highly skilled human resources in the field of Food Science and Human Nutrition with the view of promoting Food Security in the country. To strengthen the teaching of Basic Sciences in all degree programmes at SUA by enhancing the capacity of the Unit to a full Faculty status. To develop training, research and outreach capacity in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business.

log frames Phase ii

The main features of the log frame analyses produced for the respective projects at the Phase I/II transition in 2001 are presented in Annex 9.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

5

Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation

The objectives and scope of the Final Evaluation were as set out below. There were four distinct objectives. These were: To analyse the implementation of the programme over the 10 years of operation by: - Evaluating the global state of implementation of the programme, both at the level of the overall programme and the constituent projects; - Evaluating whether the activities, per project, have met the objectives that had been defined by the actors involved, within the given timeframe and with the given means; - Evaluating the management of the programme, both in Flanders and locally, and formulating, if necessary, recommendations that could be of interest for the partnerships that are still ongoing. To assess the nature of the programme by: - Evaluating the quality, efficiency, efficacy, impact, development relevance and sustainability of the programme in the light of the overall goal of the IUC Programme, being institutional capacity-building of the local university, as situated in the context of the needs of the local society; - Evaluating the cooperation between all parties involved, and formulating, if necessary, recommendations that could be of interest for the partnerships that are still ongoing. To evaluate the position of the IUC programme within the international cooperation activities of the partner university by: - Evaluating the added value of the IUC Programme for the partner university, in comparison to other ongoing donor cooperation programmes; To assimilate information from the self assessments and recommend a followup plan of the programme by: - Evaluating the follow-up plan as elaborated in the self assessment report (Format No 1, Self Assessment per project), in view of the continuation of the different activities that have started up within the framework of the IUC programme (Phase I) and the consolidation of the results as aimed for in Phase II.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

6

Evaluation methodology and procedure

The final evaluation was conducted by the external Evaluation Commission according to the approach indicated in the Foreword of this report and following the timetable presented in Annex 1 and the criteria listed in Annex 8. Discussions and interviews were held with: Northern stakeholders; Southern stakeholders; VLIR-UOS and a representative of the Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGDC); Belgian Embassy and the DGDC section in the partner country; Other relevant stakeholders. The Commission visited all relevant facilities related to the operations of the Programme in the South. In summary, the evaluation was based on a mixture of result, process and impact indicators. The VLIR-UOS evaluation format included a briefing of the international expert during a one day mission to Brussels as well as an opportunity for the evaluation commission members to have detailed discussions about the respective partnerships with the Northern stakeholders. These discussions were planned to take place at the partner university in the South towards the end of the evaluation mission. Therefore, the Northern stakeholders were present at the partner university in the South at the end of the evaluation mission. This was required for two essential reasons: To allow in-depth discussions with the evaluation commission, separately from the Southern stakeholders, to allow the Evaluation Commission to have a balanced view that takes into account the viewpoints of both parties; To facilitate discussions with the Southern stakeholders upon reaction to and for the implementation of the Evaluation Commission's conclusions and recommendations, thereby focusing activities of the Programme towards the future. This discussion was in fact held in the form of a joint steering committee meeting on Monday 4th February, 2008 (see Annex 1) At least one representative of the VLIR-UOS Secretariat was also present at the end of the mission to serve as a resource centre and in order to elucidate in situ aspects of the programme which the commission members, as outsiders, might otherwise not capture well enough, as well as to clarify the expectations of VLIR-UOS vis-à-vis the outcome of the evaluation commission in more detailed terms. At the end of the mission, the Evaluation Commission presented its draft conclusions and recommendations to all stakeholders following the SUA-VLIR closing ceremony held on Tuesday 5th February, 2008 before closing the Evaluation Commission's mission to Tanzania (see Annex 1 for the timing of this event).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

7

Evaluation Findings

This section includes both qualitative descriptions as well as quantitative assessments of all of the outputs (ie Key Result Areas) of the SUA-VLIR Programme. They are presented below project by project and they include comparisons of outputs achieved against the targets set at the beginning of Phase I and continued through to the end of Phase II. There was general agreement among all stakeholders (South and North) that the first Phase of the SUA-VLIR IUC cooperation was a learning experience for all of the parties concerned. Phase I started with an activity programme that lasted only five months (1 February 1998 to 30 June, 1998) and only began to assume a full 12-month cycle during 2001/02. Phase I of the Programme involved seven Projects that were subsequently scaled down to five in Phase II. However, it was concluded in the Mid-term Evaluation carried out in 2001 (VLIR 2001b) that the accomplishments of Phase I far outstripped the various problems of Project and Programme management encountered during that time. It should also be remembered that during Phase I SUA was planned to receive 100% funding support for every year of the Programme but that during Phase II after the first two years the budget support would according to all VLIR-UOS Programmes be scaled down according to the formula 85%, 75% and 50% of a full budget for the activity programmes of year 8, 9 and 10, respectively ­ ie for the calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2006. Consequently, achievements under each of the projects would be expected to tail off towards the ending of the 10-year Programme unless new activities were stimulated as a result of the various project outputs.

individual Project Performances

The main results and accomplishments during Phase I at the individual project level are firstly presented in Table 2 below which was adapted from the Mid-term Evaluation (VLIR, 2001b).

Table 2 : Nature and Level of Achievement (by Project) as at Sept. 2001 (end of Phase I) as compared to initial targets (adapted from VLIR, 2001b)

ProJect deScriPtive indicatorS oF reSultS Internet installed Full access to internet achieved by all Departments Network and communication through E-mail attained SUA Web page developed and accessible in the net achieved Situation in oct. 2001 Limited up-to-date computers with enough capacity Still serious lack of skilled personnel at the Computer Centre to properly manage the network Slow e-mail service USD $3,000 per month paid through the project is not sustainable

Project 1: development of Facilities for internet

70%

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Project 2: Strengthening of Snal

Computerised cataloguing and CD ROM data search on line in use at Department Level Equipment and technical assistance given to users Programme for Technical staff trained on new ICT in place. One Ph.D. student.

75%

Needed new and larger capacity computers Lack of in-house experts on the new system The achievement of national mandate for agricultural library resource was still at the planning stage

Computer room furnished with computers & software.

Project 3: Studies on the ecology, biodiversity and taxonomy of rodents

Strong research activities in place

90%

An expatriate scientist based at SUA had been supported by the programme, although he was no longer in post. The only component that received its financial allocation according to initial budget level. The component had enhanced capacity building, and was now in the SUA Pest Management Centre. The project had been widely recognised and publicised. Scientific publication output was substantial. Book project started but not completed.

Equipment and essential reagents and chemicals available for field and on station research. Two Ph.D. and one M.Sc. students nearing completion Developing models for rodent outbreak and crop damage assessment Attracted other projects: APOPO & STAPLERAT(EU), book project started.

Project 4: Soil and water conservation in the uluguru mountains

Strong research component in soil science in place Social-anthropological studies done Two Ph.D students nearing completion Strong outreach activities with farmers at the slopes of Uluguru Mountains, with sustainable impact Equipment procured

70%

Limited research in agricultural engineering compared to soil science Supervision and contacts from the Flemish counterparts Creating positive impact, with project farmers planning and managing their own production, marketing and lobbying Works through the established administration structure from district to village level. However, still no social anthropological studies had been done

Project 5: Postgraduate training and staff development in Food Science and human nutrition

Two M.Sc. Programmes in place (Food Science & Human Nutrition), with two students in each One Ph.D. student in Gent nearly completion Some laboratory equipment and computers purchased

50%

This is a well-staffed Department (about 10 Ph.D. holders) Lack of laboratory equipment is critical for the quality of the M.Sc. programme

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Seem to have been hit hard by lack of enough funding There were only four post-graduates under the programme (2 in each course) because of a lack of scholarships

Project 6: Strengthening basic Sciences unit (bSu), now the Faculty of Science (FoS)

Capacity built, in terms of infrastructure, and upgraded to the new Faculty of Science Capacity has been expanded: lecture halls, laboratory equipment, but still very inadequate B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and Management launched with success 2 Ph.D.'s in Belgium, nearing completion English being taught for all 1st year students Collaboration research taking place

50%

The new Faculty was understaffed and overloaded with teaching Laboratories were inadequately equipped and needed urgent renovation and expansion Issues of relevance to technical assistance were being raised The faculty was officially established but still had a long way to go before it could function efficiently and to maximum effect

Project 7: capacity building in agricultural economics & agribusiness.

1 Ph.D. in Belgium 6 M.Sc. scholarships Curriculum has been revised, with the advice of the Flemish counterpart Literature and teaching materials for Agribusiness has been supplied Lack of enough funds to boost Agri-business no collaborative research Support national network and collaboration for Agricultural Economics experts

50%

Lack of funds was affecting the achievement of the specific objective of promoting Agri-business No collaboration research with Flemish counterparts was taking place Needed more support and refocus of activities

Project 8: Programme Support and coordination office

Coordination Office established Computers procured Active coordination, the Coordinator serves as information centre and intermediary for all projects on SUA campus and Belgian partners Smooth coordination activity

90%

Not in the initial budget, but in 2002 handled one quarter of the total allocation. Coordination office was established with 8 administrative staff (Coordinator, Deputy Coordinator, 2 Accountants, 2 Secretaries, 3 drivers and guest house attendant). The Unit had 3 vehicles and even ran a guesthouse to accommodate visiting academics Incidents of weak coordination and communication with Bursar/DRPS reported by external auditors

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The Coordinator showed that he was very committed and active in providing programme support as required despite his heavy teaching load. The Coordinator had been doing his utmost to make things work and satisfy VLIR and UA requirements, spending more than one full day on the programme per week The Coordination was being highly appreciated by all involved in the different projects.

Project 1: Information and Communication Technology (Phases I and II)

At SUA, this project was led variously by Prof R.R. Kazwala (2001 ­ 2006) and Dr S. Tumbo (2006 ­ 2007) involving activities undertaken by Dr D.T. Shemwetta, Dr Z.M. Mganilwa and Dr W.R.W. Ballegu. The collaboration in the North at University of Antwerp has been under the leadership of Prof Jan De Sitter. Through this project, SUA was connected to the Internet and fees for Internet connectivity were up to the end of the Programme being paid in part through the VLIRUOS programme. At the start of Phase II, the Programme paid 75% of the total connection costs while SUA met the remaining 25%. Staff members of the ICT unit have also been trained on network administration during the Programme and several important staff exchanges have taken place between SUA and UA. The specific KRAs achieved by this project are summarised in Table 3. The overall objective of this project was to improve the levels of ICT used in teaching, research and administration at SUA in the fields of Agriculture, Forestry, Veterinary and Wildlife Management with the immediate results being the implementation of more effective computer teaching and learning processes, a more efficient internet access capability for students and staff at SUA and an improved Intranet service. Overall, the programme had produced satisfactory results. Both Self Assessment and Evaluation Commission observations were in agreement. As indicated in the Table 3 below, Human Resource Development (KRA 5) and Infrastructure Management (KRA 6) received a score of `4' (ie good/high) by both Self Assessment and the Evaluation Commission. Each of the KRAs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 were assigned a score of `3' based on the outputs (project results). Achievement in the specific key result areas, especially in Extension and Outreach, Management, Human Resource Development and Infrastructure Management was high. The Evaluation Commission attributed, respectively, KRA scores of `4', `4', `5' and `4'. However, little was achieved by the project in terms of research output (KRA 1) since, as the team members noted (as indeed did the Evaluation Commission),

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

"research was not their core area of focus." In the last 10 years, six publications have been produced, and in the Self Assessment the project team members gave themselves a score of `3' for research output. The Evaluation Commission considered a score of `2' was probably more appropriate for the output achieved in view of the fact that most of it was in conference proceedings (albeit commendably international in nature) rather than in refereed journals. No direct output on teaching was made by this project since it was taken that KRA 2 was not the project's main focus: thus the `+' score (ie. `results have been achieved outside the scope of the Project's specific objectives') was attributed by the team itself which the Evaluation Commission agreed with. It should be noted however that the project was able during its time span to develop a total of 16 short courses in ICT which are still being offered to students, staff and members of the local community. This has made a significant contribution to academic development at SUA and the university's relationship with surrounding communities (ie `serving society'). The ICT project team has also developed strongly and it is satisfying to note that it expects to launch in 2009 a postgraduate programme in Agricultural Information and Communication Management. The project members also reported that it updated two undergraduate courses. These are CIT 100: `Fundamentals of Computing and Networks' and CIT 200: `Fundamentals of Computer Programming' and the ICT team also developed a new course CIT 300: `Information and Communication Management for Agricultural Professionals'. These courses have already been approved and received accreditation from the Higher Education Accreditation Council (HEAC) of Tanzania. Staff members have also been trained in Lusaka and Italy on e-learning packages. Internet connection within the SUA campus community has been achieved and an internet service is working, although transmission speeds are still relatively slow at 128 kbps (KRA 3). The project has now adopted the `User Group' concept for the first time for both academic staff and SUA community members so as to facilitate communication between the various users of the SUA LAN. It is encouraging that the SUA Administration in general and project leaders in particular have been trying to enhance not only the speed of LAN and broadband internet connectivity but also allowing university facilities to be used by local communities outside of the university. It was also noted that the project was usually able to deliver and share strategic information among University Board and Senate Meetings. New institutional procedures/policies have been developed also by the project (KRA 4). Ít has increased capacity in the development of a Management Information System and developed Postgraduate, Undergraduate and Alumni Course Management Systems. The ICT unit has also produced a Business Plan for short courses and other services inside and outside the SUA campus community. Also noted by the Evaluation Commission was the fact that SUA management is now beginning to pay in full the Internet Fees necessary for the campus to be effectively `on-line' on a continuous basis. The Computer Centre is also managing its own electronic mail system which has a total of 702 email accounts belonging to academic and administrative SUA staff. Most significant have been activities related to capacity building, especially postgraduate training (KRA 5). Two academic staff received M.Sc.-level training in the UK on VLIR scholarships (completed during 2006), one M.Sc. ­ with partial support from

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

the SUA-VLIR Programme ­ was completed during 2005 in India, four academic staff received M.Sc. training sponsored by the URT Government which is still continuing at UDSM, one Ph.D. ­ support from DAAD, continuing in South Africa. A total of 15 SUA staff attended short courses supported by VLIR on bandwidth and network management in Lusaka, Italy and Belgium. On the basis of the self assessment report from this project, it is clear that the importance of using emails for communication on time critical issues has grown and is now more than ever a necessity for a vibrant campus life. In the past, all invitation letters to local and international meetings had to rely upon telephone, fax and postal systems with their inherent difficulties and limitations. The disadvantages of these methods included the requirement for much time to organize meetings, a general failure of invitees to attend meetings because communications did not reach them in sufficient time to give adequate notice, and the relatively high cost to the University of affecting communication (paper, secretarial time in typing out invitations etc). With the establishment of Internet and mail services at SUA, most staff members are now using this method to send or receive letters and invitations to attend meetings. Other benefits include the fact that the accessibility of email to all academic and non-academic staff allow staff to communicate internally. This is also an important factor in bandwidth management since staff no longer need to access yahoo, hotmail and other international accounts (that take up appreciable amounts of bandwidth) to communicate with others on campus. A significant number of staff members download documents in order to prepare lecture materials. Some of these materials are already in presentation format. Also, the University produces some generic information to communicate directly with students and it asks the Centre to upload on the SUA website. The SUA administration often request for information to be made available and accessible on Government websites. Recently, the SUA administration had to download the list of students who have been selected by the Tanzania University Commission to join SUA and also the University posted on the SUA website, the names of students who had been offered loans to cover tuition fees. Significantly, whenever there is a lack of Internet service, the ICT Centre instantly receives a large number of complaints from its clients. The system analysts in the server room have become more innovative in the planning and management of servers and bandwidth optimization as a consequence of the SUA-VLIR collaboration and training. The ICT team has come up with a plan to set up a server to manage students' emails, which means that the number of students that will be accessing outside servers to retrieve their emails is reduced as with staff access to their emails. Implementation of a squid server, intelligent switches and the VLAN system has significantly improved LAN and access to Internet. The capacity building provided to system analysts in the INASP bandwidth management courses accessed as a result of SUA-VLIR assisted the ICT Centre develop and implement effective systems for servers and bandwidth optimization. The ICT Centre has developed its own short courses on Computer Use and this initiative is expected to improve ICT skills and knowledge of staff and students and in some cases help to generate income for the ICT Centre. Provision of used computers by the Belgian `Close the Gap' Initiative has also helped to reduce the constraints in availability of computers, one result of which is that some computers can be reserved for short course activities.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Through the training of two of the SUA ICT staff in the UK to M.Sc. level under the SUA-VLIR Programme, the University has developed the capacity to develop Management Information Systems for various applications. The staff members concerned have been able to develop an Inventory Management System, the SUA Alumni Information System, for the Computer Centre. The same team and system analysts are developing other management information systems to save valuable human resources that can otherwise be used for other purposes. Furthermore, 13 staff attended INASP courses on bandwidth management and other courses by means of which SUA systems analysts have been trained and are better equipped to deal with day-to-day computer management issues. After this capacity development, the Centre is capable of developing, servicing and maintaining its own systems. ICT staff members now are able to develop web applications, implement security measures and design and implement new network systems and web services. Procurement and importation of goods into Tanzania are key problems that were faced by the ICT team at SUA. The Procurement Act requires rigid procedures to be followed in all public purchases. These procedures are complex and time consuming to the extent that if funds are made available, it might take more than six months for the equipment to be supplied. The other problem caused by this Act is that sometimes the person/company awarded the tender may not necessarily be the best. Increase in physical infrastructure / ICT-equipment (KRA 6) was noted in both the self assessment and verification activities during the Final Evaluation. Increased numbers of computers were provided by the `Close the Gap' initiative during the project period and its effect was to reduce the computer to student ratio from 1:40 to 1:15. Two computer laboratories with a total of 50 computers had been added and purchased and a power back-up system for the server room, purchased and installed. Intelligent switches running at gigabit levels were purchased and installed as were two new servers for mail management, web management and DHCP services. The project also created other opportunities for mobilization of additional resources (KRA 7). The evaluators noted the acquisition of 200 used computers from `Close-theGap', acquisition of Cisco network equipment and 180 new personal computers and recently the fact that NORAD has supported the acquisition of a new VSAT system to improve internet connectivity.

Project 2: Sokoine National Agricultural Library (Phases I and II)

At SUA, the project was led variously by Dr A.M. Chailla and, more recently, by Mr F.W. Dulle supported by Mr R.T. Mulimila, Mr. A. S. Said and Ms W. Leonard. Collaboration was with Prof P. Nieuwenhuysen (Project leader-North at Vrije Universitiet Brussel) and Prof E. de Smet (University of Antwerp). The specific KRAs achieved by this project are listed in Annex 10. In order to attain its mandate, the Sokoine National Agricultural Library (SNAL) needed to build its capacity in terms of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facilities and its human resources. The digitalisation of the library catalogue which was in progress at

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

the end of Phase I was one step towards computerizing other library services and activities such as circulation, acquisition and serial control. Efficient and reliable information services would only be realized upon full computerization of the library. This activity has continued to be the main goal of this project ever since the start of the SUA-VLIR Programme. The ever-changing information environment accompanied by developments in information technology dictated the need for highly skilled library staff as well as knowledgeable library users for efficient use of information resources. At the beginning of Phase II, SNAL had a shortfall of adequately trained human resources to man the library effectively. A formal user education programme was lacking with which to empower library users' abilities to access and use effectively available information resources (in both print and electronic forms). Therefore, there was an urgent need for training all categories of library staff as well as library users to enable them to keep abreast of technological changes. The objective of enhancing the capacity of SNAL to provide efficient library and information services to support and enrich the levels of academic information available to students and staff through the upgrading and computerisation of library services has been achieved to a large extent. The library management system is now able to support cataloguing, acquisition and circulation systems within SUA. A total of 60 functional computers are now available in the library and 80% of the library collections are now classified under easily searched electronic catalogue systems. It now means that SUA academic staff can access the library catalogue from their office desks on campus. The project has achieved commendable results in Management (KRA 4), Human Resource Development (KRA 5) and Infrastructure Management (KRA 6). There has been no formal research output (KRA 1). No report was provided in the self assessment on teaching (KRA 2), Extension (KRA 3) and Management (KRA 4) because the project members perceived them as not being part of their `core' business. The project presented satisfactory (3) and good (4) results in terms of KRA 3 and KRA 4. The project managed to produce a library compendium and leaflets/flyers/guides in both hard and soft copies on the new electronic library services. SNAL has become a model in the country and its staff is frequently being requested to undertake consultancies to assist in library development in other agriculture-based institutions in Tanzania. New SNAL service procedures were noted and e-cataloguing and instruments for accessing and borrowing were developed during, and as a direct consequence of, the SUA-VLIR Programme. The most important achievement of this project during the ten year Programme was staff development (KRA 5). Eleven staff benefited from long-term training between 2003 and 2006 while two had benefited from similar training during Phase I of the project. At least every library staff member attended an in-house training session or a short course/workshop during the same period. Two staff were trained at M.Sc. level and graduated from the University of Dar es Salaam. One Ph.D. staff member was expected to graduate in November 2007 at the University of Dar es Salaam, one postgraduate diploma grade trainee also graduated from the University of Dar es Salaam. A total of five and two staff members were trained at the School of Library Archives and Documentation Studies and the Institute of ICT, respectively, and obtained ordinary diplomas. All Library staff attended in-house training, short courses and conferences to update their professional skills.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Another significant activity has been that related to infrastructure management, especially via computerization of library services (KRA 6). The library is now computerised: 67 computers were purchased, manual library catalogues were converted into electronic and the loan system was converted from a manual operation to an electronic one. It was surprising to the Evaluation Commission that in the Self Assessment Report the project team members indicated that KRA 7 (mobilization of additional resources/ opportunities) was indicated as `not applicable' (N/A). However, the Commission noted that this output of the project might be interpreted differently, especially when it is considered that SNAL is seen as a national model for all agriculturally related institutions in the country. As a result, SNAL staff members are being approached by the URT government and other development partners to offer technical support to institutions interested in computerizing their libraries. Besides, two members of library staff from Mekelle University in Ethiopia have now also been trained by the staff of SNAL. During Phase I, SNAL was able to accomplish the following: it acquired 14 PCs for various purposes including use as Online Public Access Catalogue search stations as well as database and web servers. SNAL was able to begin developing two in-house databases, namely: SUALIB and SUAPER. The library was also able to transform the manual card catalogue into an electronic one and it continued to offer CD-ROM and Internet Services to its clients both on- and off-campus. Its staff capacity improved considerably through training at Ph.D. (one in S. Africa), M.Sc. (one in Dar es Salaam) and postgraduate diploma (2) levels as well as through staff attendances on short courses in external (8) and in-house training. There was also excellent staff exchange between SUA and its Flanders partners in this project. A total of fourteen (14) personal computers (five were brand new including two laptops) were acquired during Phase I. Of these, two were being used as database and web servers. Four PCs were used for Online Public Access Catalogue search stations for both the Solomon Mahlangu Campus (SMC) and the main campus libraries. Construction and development of two in-house databases, SUALIB and SUAPER for books and periodicals, had been started by the end of Phase I.

Project 3: Rodent Research (Phases I and II)

At SUA, the project has been under the leadership of Prof Rhodes H. Makundi, with the support of SPMC members Prof Robert. S. Machang'u, Professor Bukheti S. Kilonzo, Dr Apia W. Massawe and Dr Loth S. Mulungu. In the North, formerly by Prof Walter Verheyen, University of Antwerp and Prof Ron Verhagen, University of Antwerp, but latterly with the coordination support of Prof Herwig Leirs (also of the University of Antwerp). The specific KRAs achieved by this project are listed in Annex 10. During Phase I, Rodent Research achieved a great deal. The results of research obtained were shared and disseminated locally and in refereed journals in both the regional and international domains. At least one book was published in which chapters were contributed by PMC staff on rodent research at SUA. Through the SUA-VLIR funding, researchers at the Centre were able to attend international conferences where the results of their research were presented and this has made them highly regarded and respected as professionals in their areas of specialization. The researchers had also been involved in offering advice to

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health on practical rodent control and as now continue to be involved in a number of studies in the country where rodent problems are experienced. The research undertaken was viewed as significant to development since it was addressing the rodent problems which local farmers have been facing for years in Tanzania. Since rodents are serious agricultural pests, this research addressed poverty and food security issues. Results from these studies have been used to advise the Ministry of Agriculture on rodent control using ecological management approaches. The training component during Phase I addressed capacity building and when the two Ph.D. students completed their studies in 2002 they were able to be retained by the Centre. Also findings from their doctoral studies were oriented to offering practical solutions to rodent problems faced by farmers. In terms of resources from the SUAVLIR programme, these were used strategically in a focussed manner, including ensuring that the research by postgraduate students was relevant and of immediate practical application. As a result of the SUA-VLIR funding in the first phase, the Centre was able to attract additional projects and funding. Examples were the APOPO project funded by the Belgian DGDC and the `STAPLERAT' and `RATZOOMAN' projects, both funded by the European Union. The success of the Rodent Research Project led to the creation of the Pest Management Centre and SUA made a commitment to provide additional resources to enable widening of the Centre's research activities. The Centre therefore consolidated its international character in the first phase and now attracts both visiting scientists and students from the region and abroad. According to the results of the mid-term review, this component of the SUA-VLIR Programme was able to achieve 90% of its set objectives. Apart from the achievements mentioned above, the reviewers then noted active co-supervision of postgraduate students (some of whom were SUA academic staff members receiving advanced training in relevant subjects pertinent to institutional capacity building) and there were also some examples of staff exchange and regular communication between the SUA and their Flemish academic counterparts. Pests, including rodents, are a major concern of the government and this has been addressed in the national paper on `Plant and Crop Protection Services Policy'. The policy requires a highly organized research and extension service, which to be effective, requires both national and international approaches. Direct government intervention is required in some activities including research on pests which cause high losses in crops. With reference to research, the policy states that required technology for pest control must come from vigorous, aggressive and problem-oriented investigations and must be accomplished through the efforts of dedicated and competent scientific personnel working under a sound, well planned and organized research system. The SUA Pest Management Centre is addressing the research aspect of this policy, and the results are to be disseminated to the extension service for use by stakeholders. The research is generally problem-oriented and addresses capacity building (manpower training, equipment, etc.). Rodents cause high losses of crops and are involved as reservoirs of human diseases particularly plague, which cause both morbidity and mortality. These have considerable economic impact and therefore there is need to gain more knowledge of their ecology, taxonomy, distribution and control. The specific objectives were to ensure capacity building in rodent research at the SUA Pest Management Centre; to ensure employment of new scientists with a sound rodentology background; to develop a set of models that will allow the Rodent Control Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture to predict rodent outbreaks and simulate control actions; to provide recommendations for the prevention of plague transmission from the wild reservoirs to peri-domestic

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

fauna and humans; to provide recommendations for ecologically based management of field rodents causing crop damage; and to facilitate participation in regularly organized training courses organized by rodent control specialists. In short, the objective was to provide necessary materials and human assistance to Rodent Research Project (RRP) for further development to enable sustainable pest research capacity for the future. This objective has been significantly achieved. This is one of the leading projects because of its uniqueness in focus. The SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC) was set-up a result of the VLIR-SUA cooperation and has attained capacity in research on rodent, ecology, zoonotics and crop loss assessment and is therefore able to carry out studies and provide expertise locally, regionally and internationally when required. The most significant achievements per se have been in Research (KRA 1) and Human Resource Development (KRA 5). Investment in research and developing research capacity has shown tangible research outputs (KRA 1) with at least 38 publications in refereed journals (directly from VLIR support), 15 publications mostly by post-graduate students (as a result of conducive environment at the PMC) supervised by staff at the PMC and one book published in 2006. Besides, five manuscripts have been submitted in referred journals for publication and are under review. Staff at the PMC are involved in active teaching especially at post-graduate level (KRA 2). A book published in 2006 on Management of Selected Crop Pests in Tanzania. Tanzania Publishing House Ltd., Dar es Salaam has become a popular textbook for both undergraduate, postgraduate students and academic staff alike as a reference for both teaching and research. Various extension and outreach activities, including farmers' education on pest control and food storage (KRA 3), were noted and the practical demonstration efforts observed at the Centre. The PMC staff work closely with the central Government and various Local authorities (in particular Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare) on issues of pest management and food security. The Centre is always contracted by this Ministry in those cases when there are outbreaks of plague in various districts of Tanzania. New institutional research procedures and policies related to pest management and food storage have been developed and implemented (KRA 4). Laboratory and/or departmental management inputs on rodents have been developed and are used by staff, students and visitors. The Centre has also produced research protocols, participated in awareness and sensitisation campaigns, targeting farmers in various districts in Tanzania, especially those located in rodent-infested areas. As mentioned above, significant outputs of this project have been activities related to human resource development, especially via postgraduate studies (KRA 5). Two staff members obtained their Ph.D.'s and three M.Sc.'s through scholarships awarded under the VLIR-UOS Programme. The trained staff has been retained at the Centre. They have been able to produce and accumulate enough publications as a result of the conducive and enabling environment provided by Centre and subsequently the trained staff have been promoted within a short time after meeting the stringent SUA criteria

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

for promotion and recruitment (SUA, 1995). Twelve researchers (including two from Mekelle University in Ethiopia) have also been trained by the Centre in research, data analysis and pest management practices. The VLIR project support has enabled the purchase of additional equipment and furnishing of the Centre's laboratories (KRA 6). Demonstration and research unit for enhanced food storage facilities has been set-up and is being used for research and extension. Technical support and academic exchange from the North have been singularly effective (KRA 7). In short, the SCPM has become a centre of excellence for academic research and teaching in pest management national, regionally and internationally. The Centre's excellent record in research and publication output has attracted recognition by the international research community. The International Society of Zoological Sciences donated to the Centre a free membership to the Society (to 2012) in recognition if its contributions to international rodent research. The Centre's staff members are also actively applying for competitive research grants. Professor Makundi has submitted a RIP 2008 grant proposal entitled: `Spatial and temporal prevalence of rodent-borne zoonotic diseases affecting public health in the Rift Valley in Tanzania' which is due for evaluation on 4th March, 20085.

Project 4: Soil and Water Research (Phases I and II)

This project was led at SUA by Prof M. Kilasara (Associate Professor) with support from Prof A. K. P. R. Tarimo, Dr P.W. Mtakwa, Prof L. L. L. Lulandala, Dr. S. Tumbo, Dr D. Kimaro and Prof B.M. Msanya. In Belgium, the collaborating team was led by Prof J. Deckers, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL) with active support of Prof B. Muys and Prof J. Poesen (KUL). The KRAs achieved by this project are listed in Annex 10. Its overall objective was to enhance through conducting relevant research, the technical capacity available at SUA to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management/ conservation in mountainous areas of Tanzania. This objective has been satisfactorily achieved and the specific ones have been achieved (see logical framework in Annex 9). The technical capacity of SUA staff to develop, monitor and improve strategies for soil and water management in the Uluguru Mountains has borne many interesting results not only at the academic research level but also at the farm level. Increased production of vegetables and raised household incomes of farming families in the research area were reported as having been generated directly through the project activities. What is needed now is a critical evaluation of the various economic and social impacts of the programme on poverty reduction in the communities by socio-economists. There are many opportunities therefore for the project team to involve their colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business or in the SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural Development in writing new research and development proposals (see Recommendations, Section 13). The project's research outputs ­ in particular applied research at a rural community level ­ appear to be significant. The summation of the scientific data collected in the research area is the most important achievement of the Project because it is quite detailed and would have cross-cutting significance within disciplines and in term of subject area coverage. The latter is linked to the fact that the Uluguru Mountains are one of several significant mountain systems in the Eastern Arc Mountains, which spread from Kenya to the south-eastern and central parts of Tanzania, covering several thousand square

5 This application was approved and has now been funded by VLIR

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

kilometres and they account for a significant portion of the watershed in Tanzania. Despite the extensive practical experience gained by the project team, it is disappointing to note that only one publication has been produced in an international refereed journal and only one at the national one, although it is noted that the team presented six papers on its results at important international conferences. Teaching (KRA 2) was reported in the Self Assessment Report to be `very limited' and this can be attributed to the fact that this activity was not a key area for the Project. The Evaluation Commission was in agreement with this observation because no additional courses had been developed or upgraded as a result of the extensive practical experiences gained by the team. This was a little disappointing since it would have been expected that teaching and training resources could have been produced to enrich university teaching through detailed research guidelines and extension outreach materials. Various extension and outreach activities targeting farmers (KRA 3) were reported however. Leaflets covering various aspects of soil and water management and relatively simple methods which could be used to grow and market vegetables minimising soil erosion were produced. Lectures, field demonstrations and excursion trips concerning land, water and forest conservation were held for students and the direct interactions between the research team and farmers resulted in positive effects on productivity. It was reported by the team that both the national government and the Morogoro local authority have appreciated the role that the project has played in educating the farmers and increasing their levels of productivity. This was yet another example of how the SUAVLIR Programme activities impacted with direct benefits (e.g. raising farm incomes) on local rural communities in the Uluguru Mountains (i.e. also establishing good links with local communities). New applied research and extension/outreach procedures have been developed and implemented at the project site (KRA 4). Creation of awareness in environmental conservation and management issues has led to farmers practising what they have learned from the research team. This has resulted in increasing farm productivity. As in other projects, important outputs have been activities related to human resource development through post-graduate training (KRA 5). The outputs were: one full Ph.D., one on-going Ph.D., four M.Sc. and 11 B.Sc. Scholarships made available through the SUA-VLIR Programme and successfully implemented. Activities related to Infrastructure Management (KRA 6) have also resulted in satisfactory results. The GIS laboratory, water ponds, rooftop rain water harvesting sites, long-term soil erosion characterization sites have been laid down and are still operational. It is also important to note that there was active joint supervision of Ph.D.'s and M.Sc.'s in those cases where Flemish students carried out their research work at SUA for their M.Sc. dissertations. In the Self Assessment Report, it was reported that KRA 7 ­ "Mobilization of additional resources/opportunities" - was not applicable to this project. This again is a reflection of some degree of misunderstanding and interpretation of the various items within the assessment mechanism. The Evaluation Commission felt that the project had in fact made a contribution to this activity. It has, for instance, attracted consultancies from SADC countries like Mozambique. The results achieved by this project during Phase I of the Programme were one Ph.D. thesis, five M.Sc. dissertations, 11 special projects and four conference papers. A monograph on Soil and Water Resources Management in the Uluguru Mountains was initiated and was intended to be completed during Phase II of the project. Several

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

important items of equipment were purchased. The project enabled some of its implementers to attend both local and international conferences and present scientific findings obtained from the study area. An accurate method for assessing soil erosion in mountainous agricultural land slopes was developed and successfully tested. An elaborate land resources map and soil erosion hazard map of the study area were produced. There was joint supervision of students by Flemish and SUA counterparts at both Ph.D. and M.Sc. levels. One Ph.D. student was fully supported by the project, four M.Sc. and ten B.Sc. students were partly supported by the project while carrying out their research activities. The project managed to organize three farmer groups and worked with the latter imparting knowledge about on-farm experimental data collection and assessment. These groups were educated on environmental aspects and land conservation and they have now turned to be pressure groups spearheading soil and water conservation in the Uluguru Mountains. The project managed also to introduce to the farmer groups in the study area the concept of organic farming and it has assisted farmers build their capacity in this activity. The project became a platform for a strong collaboration between KUL and SUA. Strong ties exist now between the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences of KUL and the Department of Soil Science and the Department of Agricultural Engineering and Land Planning at SUA. This project was assessed in the mid-term review as having achieved 70% of its objectives by the year 2002. It was able to put in place a strong research component, conduct Ph.D. training, procure important equipment as well as conduct strong outreach activities with farmers along the slopes of the Uluguru Mountains with a significant impact registered by the rural communities themselves. There were active staff exchanges as well as student exchanges between Belgium and Tanzania. Communication between the South and North teams on this project was assessed as `excellent'.

Project 5: Food Science and Human Nutrition (Phase I only)

This project was coordinated by Prof A. B. Gidamis with support from Ms. Asha Ndwatta, Miss Mwajuma Baanda. In the North, the collaboration was with Prof Paul Tobback of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). The main objective of this project component was to carry out postgraduate training and staff development through short term relevant attachments at Flemish universities. The project aimed to train skilled human resources in the field of Food Science and Human Nutrition with the view of promoting Food Security in the country. It was able to develop successfully two M.Sc. course curricula in Food Science and in Human Nutrition. The latter has proved very popular with students and still continues to attract others, many of whom are supported by donors other than VLIR and BTC. The project also purchased equipment necessary for servicing teaching activities through the VLIR-SUA Programme. One member of staff connected to this Programme started a sandwich Ph.D. programme with the University of Ghent. This project, however, was discontinued in 2001 when the projects in VLIR-SUA Cooperation were scaled down to five (Annex 7). This was because at that time the project objective had only been 50% achieved (Table 2) and little research was being carried out due to the fact that no funds had actually been allocated for such activities in the Phase I Programme.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Nevertheless, the project had a direct positive impact on teaching. The two intended M.Sc. Programmes (Food Science & Human Nutrition) were successfully developed and implemented. They have turned out to be among the most popular postgraduate programmes at SUA, attracting more women even at a time when the university is facing dwindling numbers of applicants. However, because of limited funding opportunities, the Department could only admit five postgraduate students in Food Science out of 10-15 applicants. Similarly for M.Sc. Human Nutrition the Department only had sufficient staffing and material resources to admit 10-15 students out of 25-30 applicants in the 2007/08 academic year. Little activity was produced as far as extension and outreach activities were concerned although satisfactory efforts were reported to have been made on consultancy services to local offices of international organizations like UNICEF and ICRAF. Activities related to human resource development were rated as low/insignificant by the mid-term reviewers. Only one Ph.D. student obtained a scholarship at the University of Ghent in Belgium instead of the two originally planned. Activities related to Infrastructure Management were reported and also laboratory equipment and computers were purchased to provide support for the newly developed M.Sc. Programmes. Some opportunities exist to offer consultancies and mobilise additional funds with which to conduct joint research and provide technical support nationally and regionally.

Project 6: Faculty of Science (Phase I and II)

This project was led initially by Professor R.L.Kurwijila, the former Director of the Basic Sciences Unit and first Dean of Faculty of Science, and latterly by Dr. Y. C. Muzanila, Dean Faculty of Science, with support from Dr. P Mwang'ingo, Head of Department of Biological Sciences, Dr. J.K Mwalilino, Head of Department of Physical Sciences and Dr. G. K. Karugila, Head of Department of Biometry and Mathematics. Collaboration was initially with Prof Dirk Callebaut and Prof Walter Decleir (1998 ­ 2001), with Prof Walter Decleir (2001 ­ 2003) of UA and latterly with Prof Dr. W. Baeyens (Vrije Universitiet Brussel). The overall objective of this project was to strengthen the teaching of basic science components of all degree programmes at SUA through enhancing the academic capacity of the Basic Sciences Unit. The more specific objective was to create high quality teaching environments for large groups of undergraduate students. These objectives have been only partly achieved to the extent that a Faculty of Science (FoS) was established in 1999 and academic capacity building of the Faculty in terms of teaching, research and practical training has been realized. To achieve capacity building, additional laboratory equipment was ordered and some staff were able to be trained under the Programme. Because of the emphasis on teaching, SUA-based research output has been significant (KRA 1 was scored as 4 by the staff ). Many of the listed publications shown in Annex 10 have been produced by the Belgian counterparts on results obtained from the Ph.D. and postdoctoral studies carried out by Faculty members in Flanders. A total of 16 papers have been published in international peer reviewed journals (13 of which had a Faculty staff member as senior author), 3 papers in national peer reviewed journals,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

37 as full papers in conference proceedings (or in book chapters) and 9 Conference Abstracts. This is a highly commendable publication output from academic staff experiencing heavy teaching loads. With its establishment in 1999, the Faculty of Sciences has made an impact on teaching (KRA 2 scored 4 as adjudged by the self assessment). The Faculty now offers common courses for undergraduates following many of the different B.Sc. and BA courses completed on Main Campus in the subsequent years that include Mathematics (MB100), Statistics (MB101), Biometry (MB102) and Communication Skills (SC100). In addition, the Faculty offers Basic Chemistry (PS100), Biochemistry (BS100) and Botany (BS102). It was reported that through the project, laboratory manuals and teaching guides had been developed (although these were not made available for the Evaluation Commission to verify, assess and evaluate). It was reported that student passes on basic courses averaged 20% higher than in 2001 when the mid-evaluation was carried out. There are insignificant activities related to extension and outreach (KRA 3) and this is not surprising in view of the Faculty's major role in teaching basic science course to large numbers of undergraduate students. It was surprising however to the Evaluation Commission that the Faculty has in its mission statement a function of `Extension and Outreach'. This was considered by the Evaluation Commission to be more appropriate for the research group activities concentrated on the SUA Main Campus. With the establishment of the Faculty, new institutional procedures/policies have been developed (KRA 4) related to laboratory and departmental management procedures and inputs better defined and implemented than they were at the end of Phase I. Human resource development in the faculty as a result of the SUA-VLIR Programme was relatively important for the development of its current ability to run undergraduate student courses. Two staff members were trained at Ph.D. level at the University of Ghent. One staff member went to Belgium for a short course in research and scientific paper writing and one laboratory technician successfully completed a diploma course at the Olmotonyi Forest Institute in Tanzania.

Table 3 : Key Result Areas (1-7) of the SUA-VLIR Programme (where 1= insufficient, 3= sufficient and 5 = excellent)

kra ict Snal rodent research Soils and water 4 (4) n/a (1) 4 (4) 3 (3) 5 (4) 5 (3) n/a (3) Food Science Faculty of Science 4 (4) 4 (3) 1 (1) 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) agro-econ. and agri-business 1 (1) 3 (3) 2 (2) 3 (3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) mean Self assessment mean Final evaluation 2 (2) 4 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3)

research teaching extension management human resource dev. infrastructure management mobilisation

*3 (2) +(+) 3 (4) 3 (4) 5 (4) 4 (4) 5 (3)

1 (1) n/a (1) n/a (3) n/a (4) 5 (4) 4 (4) n/a (3)

5 (5) 4 (4) 4 (4) 3 (3) 5 (5) 4 (4) 4 (4)

1 (1) 4 (4) 1 (2) 4 (3) 4 (2) 4 (3) 4 (2)

*Figures shown are self assessment scores of the Sua project teams followed by figures in parentheses corresponding to the evaluation commission's own scoring

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Conclusions The scoring attributed to the different Project Key Result Areas by the teams themselves agreed with those attributed by the Evaluation Commission after the verification and interviewing procedures were completed. The outputs were rated overall as `good' to `excellent' with the exception of Research which was satisfactory across the board. However the Research output from the Rodent Research team was considered as `excellent' (5) and that of the Soil and Water team `good' (4). Human Resource Development was rated as `excellent' also for Rodent Research. Infrastructure Management was scored as `4-5' by the teams themselves and in the opinion of the Evaluation Commission, these scores were perhaps slightly on the high side in the cases of Food Science and the Faculty of Science. Essentials required for teaching large student classes (KRA 6 scored as `3' by the EC): there is no doubt that the purchase of these items has enhanced the teaching capacity of staff during the growth of the faculty over the last eight years. Substantial renovation work has been carried out using VLIR funds to upgrade lecture halls and teaching laboratories so as large student classes can be accommodated. Scholarships and travel to Belgium was cited as an important opportunity for staff (KRA 7 scored as 4 by the SUA team but scored lower by the Evaluation, ie `3'). The successful supervisory support and academic exchange from the North (Vrije Universitiet Brussel and University of Antwerp) was seen by the SUA project team as having been an important opportunity for the Faculty and its staff and students. However, it was concluded that the Faculty is still far from achieving its intended goals since large class teaching still continues to be a difficult challenge for its lecturing staff because of limitations in existing structures, facilities and resources. However, during the life of the SUA-VLIR Programme many infrastructural improvements have been realised (see below). Staff recruitment and training has progressed well but there continue to be shortages of staff for teaching. This situation of course has not been helped by staff travelling away for long periods to undergo postgraduate training. Strategies should be developed by SUA to retain trained staff through better remuneration and packages of incentives for full-time teaching at this stage of the Faculty's development. Faculty infrastructure and specialist equipment, despite the SUA-VLIR investments, are still in many cases inadequate in the Faculty. In retrospect, it may have been more appropriate for this project to have concentrated purely, especially in the second phase, on the production of teaching manuals and other teaching resources like Powerpoint presentations of key course lectures and the production of web-based teaching resource materials suitable for use by large student classes. A number of teaching materials have been adapted from other Faculties/Departments at SUA. It was recommended in the Mid-term Review that these be revised from time to time to include new developments in the field. Examples of these were the Botany Compendium and the Biochemistry Manual. There appeared therefore to be problems remaining with the development of adequate teaching materials for undergraduate class teaching.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The Faculty of Science now runs one of the most popular degree programmes at SUA: the B.Sc. in Environmental Sciences and Management. Through this, the Faculty of Science has developed most of its basic infrastructure (with the combined assistance of VLIR-UOS and other donors, particularly NORAD). It has also trained (and still is training) its own staff and it has maintained reasonable collaboration with its northern counterparts. There was also good staff exchange and one professor from UA was even involved in part-time teaching in the Faculty of Science.

Project 7: Agricultural Economics and Agri-business (Phase I only)

This project was under the leadership of Dr E.R. Mbiha and collaboration was with Prof Laurent Martens, University of Ghent. The accomplishments of this project were rated as `significant' by the mid-term reviewers. The project was able to train one Ph.D. and six M.Sc. students. It was also able to revise its B.Sc. curriculum to suit changing business management requirements. The B.Sc. degree programme in Agricultural Economics and Agri-business remains one of the four most popular degree programmes at SUA. Agri-business also benefited from support for the purchase of important text books, computers, library furniture and stationery and for attendance at conferences, as well as in publishing their proceedings. The objective of this project was to develop training, research and outreach capacity in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business. Regrettably this project had to be discontinued in 2001 when the projects in SUA-VLIR cooperation were being scaled down to five. Since several successful commercial enterprises have emerged during Phase II from this emerging department, especially in the agri-business field, it was highly probable that these developments would not have been possible had it not been for the earlier VLIR support. At the end of Phase I, the project objective of training staff and producing research outputs through collaboration with Northern partners had, in the view of the mid-term reviewers, only achieved 50% of its planned activities. It was observed by the mid-term review that not much research was being done in the Department in 2002 because research was not the main objective of the Project. The project therefore made a direct impact on teaching. In its revised format, the B.Sc. Agricultural Economics Course developed into more demand-driven teaching experience. It has become one of the more popular courses at SUA, attracting substantial numbers of applicants every academic year. A Department Resource Centre was established and stocked with reference materials and textbooks that are used actively by both staff and students. Not much extension and outreach work had been achieved by 2002, although the potentials of the department to offer competitive consultancies and for raising money for SUA training and research initiatives off-campus were recognised by the Evaluation Commission. During the interviews, attention was drawn to the Commission of the results of a commercial initiative ­ The Shambani Graduates Enterprise ­ formed in 2003 by three B.Sc. Agri-business graduates of the SUA Department of Agriculture Economics and Agri-business. The enterprise collects milk from Masai cattle keepers

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

in Morogoro Rural District and processes it into different dairy products for sale in the Morogoro District. The company creates employment, promotes milk consumption and pioneers the creation of wealth and jobs through agricultural-based entrepreneurship. The enterprise has won several prestigious awards and prizes including the 2007 Global Business Plan Prize awarded by the `Business in Development Network' held that year in Amsterdam, Holland. In addition to these notable achievements, several capacity building activities were accomplished as part of the Phase I SUA-VLIR Programme. One Ph.D. scholarship was awarded to a member of academic staff to study in Flanders and six M.Sc. scholarships were awarded to students registered in the department.

Project 8: Programme Coordination Unit (Phase I and II)

Prior to 2000, the SUA-VLIR Programme was coordinated by Prof R.S. Machang'u and then passed over to the current Programme Coordination Unit manned by Dr P.W. Mtakwa (Coordinator since December 2000) and Dr C. T. Tungaraza (acting as Deputy Coordinator since October 2001). In 2001, the Programme Coordination Unit was adjudged by the Mid-Term Review as having accomplished 90% of its expected outputs. However, activity was much more costly than originally intended. A level of 10% of the Phase I budget had been allocated for the purpose of SUA programme coordination (since this is normally the level required to cover institutional overheads in African institutions). However as explained during interviews, the PCU also supported many project-related activities during the life of the Programme, such as the purchasing and maintaining of the vehicles obtained for the Programme with VLIR funds, employing drivers, accountants and other administrative staff, purchasing an institutional generator, etc. on behalf of all of the Projects in the Programme based at SUA. The vehicles and certain other investments were shared resources between all of the projects at SUA. The Mid-term evaluators recommended that communication between the projects at SUA on campus and between the different groups in the Flemish universities should be improved by stronger interactions between the PCU and colleagues on SUA and SMC. SUA Project teams needed to be informed of the arrival of tranches of funding from VLIR, about impending training visits of SUA personnel to Belgium, and notification of visits to SUA being made by Belgian academic counterparts. Because of a series of minor misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication between Project Leaders and the early Programme coordination structure in place at SUA (based in the SPMC) and the development of several rumours about possible mismanagement of VLIR funds during 1998 ­ 2001, an external financial audit was commissioned and carried out in late 2002 by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). The purpose of this audit was to verify that VLIR funds had been appropriately allocated to the different Projects at SUA during Phase I (further details provided below in Section 10). The impartial audit approach enabled PWC to conclude that overall the financial statements presented were a true and fair view of the state of the financial affairs of SUA-VLIR Programme and of its income and expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2002. However, it did note that there were some areas of internal control weaknesses which PWC reported in

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

detail in a Management Letter together with recommendations to remedy those weaknesses. An annual financial audit was therefore carried out every subsequent year of the SUA-VLIR Programme by the same firm and as a result financial procedures at SUA were tightened to the satisfaction of the local taxation authorities and all SUA-VLIR stakeholders.

Table 4 : Actual allocation vs. initial budget, actual and normative share of total (1997-2000)a

Phase i Projects Project 1: internet Project 2: library Project 3: rodent Project 4: Soil & water Project 5: Food Science Project 6: Faculty of Science Project 7: agric. economics and agri-business Project 8: Sua Programme coordination unit total

a b

actual/ budget % 53 99 103 62 70 42 55

b

Spending/ total % 7.9 8.0 19.9 7.9 8.2 12.5 8.5 27 100

% budget allocated 10 10 16 10 10 24 10 10 100

n/a

adapted from mid-term evaluation report (vlir 2001b) no allocation made in the original Phase i budget but in 1999 it was agreed that a Sua Programme coordination unit should be established to operate separately from the Sua drPgS.

Structural solutions were put into practice to address these problems during and at the conclusion of Phase I (i.e. before Phase II was started). These measures were as follows: Additional funding was sought by SUA from the URT government to support staff appointments in order to upgrade the expertise and academic standing of several SUA Departments; The members of projects which remained and continued in Phase II stressed the need for budgets that would support additional staff training where appropriate; Physical infrastructure and modernisation of equipment at SUA were being improved as Phase I was underway; During the final year of Phase I, the University of Antwerp put in place a system for pre-financing the SUA-VLIR Programme in order to ensure that funds would be available by the first week of each quarter. This system has, since December 2000, been very transparent especially since all budgets are agreed upon by all project leaders in the South and the North and fully respected. Appreciation for the active and untiring role of Professor Luc D'Haese, Coordinator of the SUAVLIR Programme (North), in ensuring high standards of book-keeping and accounting on behalf of all of the SUA-VLIR stakeholders was mentioned many times during the Evaluation Commission's interviews with many different stakeholders in the North and the South; Inadequate communication between the South and the North partners was acknowledged to have been a major problem in the case of Projects 5 and 7 during Phase I and this was one of the main considerations in deciding that these project should be discontinued during the Phase I/Phase II transition; and,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Because of the apparently poor communication between the projects and their members in both the North and the South, the Programme was recommended to launch a SUA-VLIR Programme Newsletter to facilitate and improve communication between different Projects at SUA and among academic staff based in the Flemish Universities. This was not done despite the fact that the PCU was so well supported financially by the Programme. Apparently academic members of staff who were originally appointed to run the Newsletter complained that they were too busy with all of their existing academic and administration activities to take on this extra task on behalf of the Programme. It was finally decided that correspondence between Project Leaders and team members could continue through e-mail as well as through the SUA Newsletter. This decision appears to have been one taken locally on SUA campus and may have proved to have been a missed opportunity for the Programme to have improved awareness among all SUA-VLIR stakeholders of forthcoming events (like visits and training missions), research progress (including publications at all levels) and Programme visibility to the local communities in and around Morogoro Municipality.

Accumulated outputs from each project over the ten year period (Phases I and II combined)

There were some similarities and differences between Phase I and Phase II. It was agreed that Phase II would build on equipment purchased, the manpower capacity generated and the research experiences gained as well as other institutional capacity improvements achieved to further raise the institutional capacity of the parts of SUA that had been rehabilitated by the VLIR-UOS initiative in Phase I. Researchers through training and collaborative research with Flemish partners had gained confidence in their approach to research and advisory services. Phase II was therefore very much intended to add value to the various achievements of Phase I. Research results from Phase I were also intended to be used as a springboard to attract funding from sources other than IUC during Phase II. Projects like Rodent Research were already attracting funding from a variety of sources including the EU. The Soil and Water Project intended at the Phase I/Phase II transition to attract funding from either the EU or BTC on developing eco-tourism in the Uluguru Mountains. Most importantly, during Phase II south-south networking was to be developed and emphasized than it had been during Phase I. As a major part of the Final Evaluation, the Commission reviewed separately the five Phase II projects (i.e. ICT, SNAL, Rodent Research, Soils and Water and the Faculty of Science) and compared the situation in place at Year 6 of the Programme (after Phase I was completed) with the situation by the end of Year 10. In so doing, the Commission appreciated the difficulties of comparing the output scores from service provider operations (like the ICT and SNAL projects), research specialist units (like the Rodent Research and Soils and Water projects) and heavily committed teaching units (ie Faculty of Science). There is obviously a different emphasis for each of these operations in respect to capacity building and academic activity output (research, teaching and extension/outreach). As a compromise, it was taken that each component in its own way is just as valuable as the next in terms of the positive effects which they can make to university capacity building and its further academic development.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The final evaluation focused on the specific key result areas (KRAs) generated by each of the five Projects, but with some compensation applied for those specialising in resource provision and teaching, since the tangible benefits were not only in the form of publications and training achieved as a direct result of the Programme. The KRAs consisted of eight components: Research, Teaching, Extension and Outreach, Management, Human Resources Development, Infrastructure Management, Mobilisation of Additional Resources (ie sustainability) and other additional outputs. The level of achievement for each project was scored by project team members (both South and North partners in their Self Assessment Reports: Format No 1) and also separately by the Evaluation Commission as an output of a combination of individual interviews, observations and verification of the stated outputs (scores shown in parenthesis). Also important were the impressions obtained from general discussions with stakeholders of from both the North and the South (see Annexes 11, 12 and 13).

Qualitative assessments of each project

For the purposes of the qualitative assessments of each project, the achievements of both Phases I and II were taken into consideration. It was impossible for the Evaluation Commission to assess properly the effectiveness of undergraduate teaching as this related directly to the `quality of undergraduate teaching' ­ one of the specific objectives of the Faculty of Sciences project. The only way to have done this would have been to carry out an academic review of student output in classes and examinations, which was beyond the scope of the time frame available for the current evaluation. It was easier to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of service provision and research outputs of the SUA-VLIR Programme and to gauge its relevance and capacity building value. Service provision was evaluated and verified in terms of the presence and functioning of equipment such as computers and internet connectivity and scientific publications appearing in refereed journals have an internationally recognised peer value within the university sector.

Project 1: ICT (Phase I and II)

The relationship between the collaborators at the UA and the SUA ICT team was good and there still remain active links enabling establishment of competence in new computer technologies and rapidly updated software/hardware applications. The assistance provided by Prof Jan De Sitter and colleagues has been much appreciated by both ICT staff and other SUA stakeholders using ICT facilities on campus. Impact of the ICT collaboration with UA counterparts has led to participation of SUA, as a model, in a national computerisation initiative in agricultural institutions and a partner in an East Africa Higher Education Consortium (HEC managed by IDRC) aimed at providing economically viable broadband internet connectivity in preparation for the planned fibre optic cable (`backbone') connection currently being laid between South Africa and East African countries via Africa's east coast (due to be completed in 2010). The Belgian NGO `Close the Gap' initiative, which the ICT project help develop during the 10 year VLIR-UOS partnership, has enabled SUA to obtain over 200 computers for equipping its ICT laboratory and adding to its capacity to service the teaching and research needs on SUA campus. Its computer expertise provision outreach activities

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

to two schools in the Morogoro Municipality have been a good example of a direct service to the community (society). The use of SUA's ICT facility by members of the local Morogoro community during SUA's own extracurricular computer education programmes has only been made possible during the life of the SUA-VLIR collaboration. This again demonstrates the benefit of the VLIR initiative in leading to the university being able to serve the local communities in a direct practical manner. Increasing bandwidth availability on SUA campus has been assisted recently by the provision by NORAD of an upgraded VSAT system which is hoped will be operational soon and capable of supporting up to 11Mb/sec transmissions. Concerted measures are now being taken by the ICT unit to address the connectivity issue. The provision of sufficient bandwidth remains a great challenge and the recurrent costs involved in supporting a monthly subscription for broadband to the SUA campus (of around US$3,000 per month) are serious issues of sustainability.

Project 2: SNAL (Phases I and II)

The SNAL collaboration with the Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universitiet Brussel) and UA has enabled the SUA Library to produce on-line catalogues of at least 80% of its accessions. The remaining 20% are local unpublished reports and conference proceedings which are planned to be incorporated in soft form in the near future. As a result of the training and financial support received during the VLIR-UOS programme, SNAL has become a leading member of a national library consortium incorporating libraries in other higher educational establishments. The SNAL computerisation activities undertaken in the VLIR-UOS programme have made it a model for the Tanzanian Ministry of Higher Education in their own efforts to computerise libraries based in various other institutions in URT. The SNAL facilities have also been made available to access by local communities in URT showing that this national facility is now accessible on-line and performing its national mandate more effectively than it was before the SUA-VLIR Programme started.

Project 3: Rodent Research (Phases I and II)

The SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC) has attained a commendable and widely appreciated capacity in research on rodent ecology, zoonistics and crop loss management of both regional and international significance. The Centre is now competent to carry out commissioned studies and it provides technical assistance on Integrated Pest Management and rodent control on national, regional as well as international levels. Its collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture's own National Rodent Control Centre in its efforts to control rodent pestilence in large areas of the country has been exemplary of service to the community at large. The international recognition of PMC staff has been manifested through awards for attendance for best scientific presentations during 2006 and 2007 at conferences in Vietnam and China, respectively. Because of the enhancement in the international reputation and academic standing of the PMC, staff who have undergone training at Ph.D. level have been able to be retained upon their return to SUA. PMC has coordinated, as mentioned previously, the editing in 2006 of a popular student textbook

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

entitled `Management of selected crop pests in Tanzania'. The SPMC therefore contributes significantly towards teaching on campus. In recognition of the sustained output of high quality research publications in the international refereed journals, local relevant publications and presentations at international and regional conferences by PMC staff in close collaboration with its partners in the North deserves a special commendation. A recommendation is therefore made by the Evaluation Commission under Section 14.1 for the VLIR Secretariat to approach a relevant Belgian learned society with the intention of nominating the PMC team (both South and North collaborators) for an appropriate scientific award or some form of prestigious statement of merit in recognition of its sustained applied research output of high quality.

Project 4: Soils and Water (Phases I and II)

Vehicles and equipment purchased under VLIR-UOS have allowed the researchers and teachers in Soils and Agricultural Engineering to carry out their field research in a relevant and important rural location in the Uluguru Catchment. The opportunities for postgraduate training in Flemish Universities have enabled the SUA departments concerned to train their staff and carry out research on wellfocused topics centred on a selected group of rural populations who are benefiting from increased income generation capacity. Also it is important to note that staff of the Centre have benefited immensely from VLIR-UOS academic activities during their internal promotions within SUA. Local government has noted and recognised the substantial benefits of SUA research activities and is now interested in collaboration with the Project team and in finding ways of developing markets and road infrastructures. Interactions between SUA Soils and Agricultural Engineering staff and academic members of staff based in two other VLIR-UOS universities in Ethiopia at Mekelle and Jimma have been particularly active during Phase II. The lesson learned by the SUA team at the research and outreach location in the Uluguru Mountains has led to a direct transfer of experiences and expertise to the terraced hillside situations in Northern Ethiopia. Significantly, the strategic plan of the Sokoine University of Agriculture (2005 ­ 2010) identifies firstly, improving capacity and quality of research by adjusting the balance between basic and applied research; secondly, increasing the volume and quality of outreach and community service; and thirdly, establishing linkages with the private sector among its seven key issues and challenges which need and will be addressed. The Soil and Water Conservation Project created an opportunity for the respective departments involved to create a field site where research experiences can be shared between the farmers and the university academic community (students and academic members of staff ). It has acted as one of the platforms for addressing some of SUA's key challenges. It has discovered also some relevant new facts that can be used to formulate the next strategic plan for the Uluguru Catchment vis-à-vis knowledge sharing and a responsibility sharing between academics and local communities to solve farm land

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

community problems particularly those concerning the roles of each partner. Through such initiatives it might be possible to improve the sustainability of project-oriented on-farm action plans. The initial project objectives centred around fact finding on the natural resources management systems in the Uluguru Mountains taking into account the socio-economic setup so that such information could be used in a second phase to attempt to implement the initialization of better management of the natural resources (land, water and biodiversity/forest resources) so as to enhance the livelihood of the community. This participatory approach has been implemented by using demonstration plots that have been managed by farmer groups. The latter created the possibility for farmers to understand cause-effects in the execution of on-farm experiments. There were some unexpected problems related to the field situations: e.g. protracted droughts during 2005 and 2006 affected the expected results and outputs in those seasons. These events forced the project to introduce new activities that were not planned for in AP 2006 and which were also designed as part and parcel of an `exit strategy'. These centred on discouraging excessive land tillage-oriented activities and placing an increased reliance on some income-earning actions that do not cause soil disturbance and hence soil erosion. The project introduced three new options for the local communities: modern beekeeping skills, cultivation of jatropha for seed production, and the introduction of butterfly farming aimed at a future export market. The project has therefore served the local community in a very practical and valuable manner, increasing household incomes (thereby helping to reduce poverty in the study areas) and developing further research topics that are relevant to the improvement of rural livelihoods.

Project 5: Food Science and Human Nutrition (Phase I only)

Two new postgraduate courses in Food Science and Human Nutrition were developed successfully in partnership with KUL as a direct result of VLIR-UOS collaboration. These courses continue to attract substantial numbers of applications every year as do the undergraduate counterpart courses. Because these course topics are popular to students they are assisting the University increase its numbers of applications at a time when overall these are declining for many agricultural subjects. These courses are therefore contributing significantly to the sustainability of the university's teaching programmes. Active training links have been developed and strengthened with another VLIRUOS partner university ­ University of Zambia ­ and the Kigali Institute of Science, Technology and Management in Rwanda (a non-UOS partner institution). As part of this activity, curricula are being strengthened and reciprocal staff teaching exchanges are taking place.

Project 6: Faculty of Science (Project 5 Phases I and II)

Collaboration with University of Antwerp counterparts has led in a steady sustained manner to the development of a new Faculty from a Basic Sciences Unit of 1997 which is now better able to carry out large group undergraduate teaching and a minimal amount of research in the basic and applied sciences. A key problem identified by the project members had been the lack of sufficient funds to accomplish some planned activities, e.g. M.Sc. curriculum development was not implemented in some cases and also research activities planned for South ­ South Cooperation were not able to be carried

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

out. Furthermore, some of the equipment planned for purchase under the Programme was not possible because available funds were needed to be channelled into Ph.D. scholarships for Staff members studying in Flanders. The Faculty development started by VLIR has now attracted resources from other agencies, e.g. NORAD, which has funded the erection and stocking of a modern teaching library on the SMC. The VLIR programme has therefore contributed to the capacity of SUA to adapt to new challenges in dealing with high student numbers during Years 1 and 2 of the undergraduate teaching timetable. Vehicle and other major equipment purchased with VLIR funds have enhanced the teaching experiences of staff and students, although severe limitations in teaching space and in general laboratory equipment for teaching large undergraduate student groups are still being experienced. There is little doubt that the research interests and sustained commitment of the two northern partners in the development of the FoS, which has been greatly appreciated by both staff and students alike, have helped to enhance the faculty's international academic profile. In fact, research and training activities under the VLIR-UOS Programme have led directly to a proposal being submitted by a team at the Faculty of Science to the competitive VLIR Research Initiatives Call 2008 entitled: `Groundwater characterisation of a coastal aquifer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: mapping groundwater quality zones and developing groundwater management strategies' in collaboration with the University of Ghent6.

Project 7: Agricultural economics and Agri-business (Phase I only)

The collaboration assisted SUA develop an undergraduate programme in agricultural economics and agri-business during the late 1990's. These courses are now proving extremely popular with students and continue to attract comparatively high numbers of applications each year. The VLIR Programme has therefore contributed significantly to the ability of SUA to attract undergraduates in a declining intake scenario. It has therefore aided sustainability of SUA academic programmes and contributed to capacity building. Courses were revised and strengthened under the collaborative support and academic interactions with UG staff.

Project 8: Programme Coordination Unit (i.e. Project 6 Phase II)

The Evaluation Commission noted that there was much appreciation by all (South and North stakeholders of the SUA-VLIR Programme) of the sustained and tireless commitment of the academic staff members manning the PCU at SUA (as also with the one coordinating the Flemish Universities based in the University of Antwerp). At the Phase I/Phase II transition, extra efforts were made by all concerned to avoid the difficulties which had hindered Programme implementation during Phase I. The spirit of compromise and the dedication of individuals which allowed the SUA-VLIR collaboration to function during times of difficulty have been the special features of resilience characteristic of the SUA/UA Partnership. During Phase II, the combined efforts of both coordination units made it possible for all of the partnership's stakeholders to focus more on academic activities of the programme rather than on difficulties with management and financial apportionment. Implementation of regular internal and

6 This proposal was reviewed on March 4th, 2008 and approved for funding by VLIR

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

external audits also greatly assisted clearer book-keeping and more accurate accounting procedures through better reconciliation of the MACRO (advocated by VLIR but not used even by UA) and HOGIA (used by SUA) book-keeping systems.

Programme Performance ( where a score of 1 = poor and 5 = excellent)

The performance criteria produced by self assessment reports from the project team members (Format No1) are summarised below using the following a five-point evaluation scale: 1 = (very) poor; 2 = insufficient/low; 3 = sufficient; 4 = good/high and 5 = excellent/very high. Academic standards: Score 3 Academic quality of the SUA-VLIR Partnership was rated overall as good but special mention should be made of the high standards of the research and the associated publication output achieved by the collaborations under Project 3: Rodent Research. This the Evaluation Commission adjudged a score of `5', i.e. `excellent'. The research publication output from this project was of a high international standard that merited recognition of the sustained effort made by this particular collaboration (see later under Recommendations in Section 14.1). Effectiveness: Score 4 The collaboration has led to a most commendable output as judged against original planned targets to the satisfaction of both the South and North partners. National Stakeholders have benefited from the collaboration particularly the Ministries of Agriculture, Higher Education, Land and Tourism. Efficiency: Score 3 Overall the efficiency of the collaboration was reasonable under the circumstances especially since this partnership was essentially a testing ground for the VLIR-UOS initiative. SUA/UA Coordination was generall effective but efficiency of the SUA-VLIR Programme has been exacerbated by several factors such as deployment of unclear management rules, delayed communications and inconsistent regulations regarding financial and procurement procedures. Differences in financial book-keeping arrangements at SUA and UA (and the VLIR Secretariat) led to some significant delays in disbursement of funds at various stages of the Programme. However, as the programme progressed through Phase II, the partnership grew more efficient in terms of academic outputs but not in terms of financial inputs (see below under Section 10). Impact: Score: 4 In general, the partnership has generated a substantial impact. For instance, SUA staff members are involved in mainstream advocacy and provision of technical assistance (consultancies) to the URT Government, private sector operators and international development agencies within country and EA and SADC. ICT developments have led to SNAL taking a leading role in the East Africa library consortium and are advising several other major libraries in URT.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Development Relevance: Score: 4 SUA staff are working with the local provincial government to generate a strategic plan for developing food production initiatives in the Morogoro District. Both Project 3: Rodent Research and Project 4: Soils and Water are involving ministries and rural communities in outreach activities as part of their research. The latter SUA-VLIR project has led to major improvements in income generation in rural families living in the steep slopes of the Uluguru Mountains. The strategic plan of the Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2005 ­ 2010 identifies improving capacity and quality of research, and improving the balance between basic and applied research; increasing the volume and quality of outreach and community services; and establishing linkages with the private sector among the seven key issues and challenges which need to be addressed by the university in the future. The Soil and Water Conservation Project created an opportunity for the respective departments to create a field site where research experiences can be shared among the farmers and the university academic community (students and academic members of staff ). It has acted as one of the platforms for addressing some of SUA's key challenges but also some relevant facts that can be used to formulate the next strategic plan vis-à-vis knowledge sharing and approach to solving farm land community problems particularly concerning roles of each partner and sustainability of project-oriented on-farm action plans. The initial project objectives centred around fact finding on the natural resources management in the Uluguru Mountains taking into account the socio-economic setup so that such information could be used in the second phase to attempt to implement the initialization of better management of the natural resources (land, water and biodiversity/forest resources) to enhance the livelihood of the community. The relevant data sets were collected though these were only processed in Phase II. Major forms of natural resource degradation were identified as well as the corresponding causative factors. The information acquired has been used to propose ways of mitigating natural resource degradation coupled with ways of improving crop yields (of both vegetables and bananas ­ the main cash crops). The approach has been participatory using demonstration plots that were managed by farmer groups. Efforts are now concentrating on encouraging non-tillage oriented activities and with the introduction of income-earning actions that do not cause much soil disturbance and hence soil erosion. Some of the initial assumptions therefore did not correspond to the real situation during the implementation phase of the project, so that some adjustments were necessary and as a consequence some achievements differ from those stated from the objectives set in the log frame (Annex 9). Sustainability: Score: 2 Certain financial and institutional stability initiatives have resulted directly from the activities of South-North and South-South collaborations developed during the Programme. Examples are European Union collaborative research proposals and successfully funded projects in Rodent Research (with Flemish counterparts); academic and outreach training initiatives in Food Science and Human Nutrition between SUA and other VLIR-UOS partnership programmes based in Ethiopia and Zambia.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Table 5 : Capacity Building Recipients of the SUA-VLIR Programme, (where 1 = Substantial Capacity Building Support and 4 = No capacity building support)

kra research teaching extension management human resource dev. infrastructure management mobilisation other ict **n/c? *n/c 3 n/c? 1 n/c? n/c? n/c? Snal n/c? n/c n/c n/c n/c? n/c? n/c? n/c? rodent research 1 n/a? n/a? n/a? n/c? n/c? n/c? n/c? Soils and water 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 2 Faculty of Science n/c n/c n/c n/c 1 1 n/c n/c

*n/c = not completed by team in the Self assessment Forms; **n/c = this part was not completed (several Project teams did not understand the significance of this part of the Self assessment Form) but it should have been in view of the fact that kra scoring had been attributed by the team in table 3; n/a = not applicable, as filled in on Self assessment forms by the Project team

cross-cutting issues

The Self Assessment Reports (South and North) indicated that there are several key cross-cutting issues characterising the SUA-VLIR Programme. There was a general consensus across the projects that there had been substantial human resource capacity building on the SUA-VLIR Programme in terms of people who were trained to Ph.D., M.Sc., and B.Sc. as well as Diploma levels. Research was also very much improved owing to the equipment that was obtained through the collaboration. Due to the cooperation between the North and South partners and investments made through the partnership (listed in Annex 15), SUA is now able to do a great deal more research than before the Programme started in 1997. The University is also attracting students together with researchers from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security to use its facilities (naturally at a cost, thus ensuring some funds are available for maintaining equipment that is used for both research and teaching). Capacity building and research emerged as the most commonly agreed significant achievement of the SUA-VLIR Programme. This has boosted SUA's ability to be able to establish international / regional university networks. There are now South-South, South-North-South as well as North-South networking initiatives and academic collaborations in place as a result of the IUC initiative. From an overall institutional perspective, the outputs of all of the projects have strengthened the university image and its capacity to attract more funds and students. However, it was agreed that there is, and has been in the past, limited inter-departmental and inter-Project research collaboration on SUA campus itself. The working linkage between the Agricultural Engineering and Soil Science staff members in undertaking activities on Project 4 in the Uluguru Mountains was considered by many interviewed as truly ground breaking.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The large numbers of investments in equipment and vehicles made by the SUAVLIR Programme underline the emphasis of the VLIR-UOS Partnership Scheme in providing ownership of investments by the university institution in the South. These were substantial and amounted to a total value of 1,122,244 over the 10-year period of the SUA-VLIR UOS Partnership (Annex 15). The responses of the Team Leaders from the North and the South and Project Team members at SUA show clear consistency in terms of what they interpret has been achieved by the SUA-VLIR Programme (Annexes 11 and 14). More significantly, there appears to be agreement and consensus on the direction in which the collaboration should now proceed given the various Post-IUC opportunities provided by VLIR. During the mid- and final stages of the Final Evaluation, questions were raised by the Evaluation Commission on whether or not there could be a possibility that VLIR might consider supporting another ten-year programme at SUA by building upon the good academic relationships that had already been built up. Both sets of partners would naturally welcome this kind of opportunity, especially if other parts of the SUA campus could benefit from any new initiative and that the existing south-south linkages be substantially strengthened and possibly some others formed (see below under Recommendations).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

8

Assessment of SUA Programme Management

The general consensus across projects was that the integration of the VLIR-UOS partnership and the strategic development of SUA were well addressed. This was considered by Stakeholders to be primarily due to the fact that the formulation of the IUC Programme and its Projects were very much in line with the stated mission and vision of SUA to the year 2005 and beyond. The VLIR-UOS partnership represented a good balance between the needs of the South and the academic interests of the North. In both Phases I and II, the SUA-VLIR Programme was based overall on five demand-driven projects. The seven original projects (reduced to five in Phase II) consisted also of a strong combination of capacity building and research. Mutual academic interests were therefore fostered, as well as responding to donor demands so that a so-called `win-win' situation was possible to attain. The project leaders in the South and those in the North all agreed that the Programme bonded the academics at SUA with those in the partner universities in the North. Indeed, the SUA-VLIR IUC programme was considered a useful learning experience and an empowering process to both the North and South partners (Annexes 11 and 14, respectively). During the 1990's it was perceived, rightly or wrongly by donors, that the administrative capacity of SUA to handle externally funded programmes had weaknesses. With assistance from NORAD, the donor coordinating unit DRPGS was strengthened making it better equipped to rectify the recognised weaknesses. However, the requirements of the VLIR-UOS Partner Programme regarding handling and reporting of finances was appearing to be so special that even DRPGS found it at times cumbersome to handle. As it turned out, the VLIR programme coordination office (the Programme Coordination Unit, i.e `Project 8') took over the handling of the administrative routines that were previously the responsibility of the DRPGS. This was seen at the time as the most suitable compromise that the SUA administration and VLIR-UOS projects could suggest that would allow the Programme to continue its planned course without too much further delay or disruption. According to the Programme Agreement, the Flemish and Local coordinators were jointly responsible for the implementation of the Programme. Actual experience, during early Phase I particularly, suggested to SUA stakeholders that the Flemish coordinator tended to assume the upper hand in financial matters, posing as it were as the `interpreter' of the VLIR/University of Antwerp rules, wishes and intentions. Although well intended, this also caused some degree of disharmony between the two coordinators (ie the one in the South and the other in the North). Reference to this particular source of disharmony was made quite unequivocally in papers presented at the special meeting of the Joint Steering Committee held on 14.09.2000.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

In general, the top management at SUA had a feeling that there was a certain level of mistrust on the part of VLIR, even to the extent of suspicion that funds transferred to SUA were being embezzled. That feeling was being enhanced by lack of open dialogue and sustained by the commissioning by VLIR in 2001 of the external auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) to carry out a review of the latest accounts. The SUA management interpreted understandably the need for such reviews as a threat and by implication that the entire Programme might be terminated because of a possibility that funds had been mismanaged. The SUA top management was requested by VLIR to submit an official statement with an action plan for rectifying the alleged shortcomings, as indicated in a draft of the PWC audit report. SUA were reticent to endorse any final, official statement based on a draft report only. On this issue, the SUA administration made reference to the three page letter from the then Director of VLIR to the SUA Vice Chancellor dated 27th July 2001, and the letter from SUA in reply, dated 6th August in same year. At the beginning of Phase I, written guidelines on IUC Programme management and financial procedures were not provided (or even clearly explained verbally to SUA management and the Programme Coordination Unit). It was subsequently agreed that from 2002 (i.e. Phase II) the VLIR financial regulations and procedures would be made clear and in writing wherever possible. This had the effect of reducing tensions and doubts that had built up particularly among some of the participating SUA staff members. One of the key problems was that some of the "imposed" regulations were not much in line with local (SUA) ones (such as the differences in book-keeping and accounting software being used at different institutions). This made it difficult to implement procedures effectively and to report especially on financial matters to deadline (see below also under Section 10). A gender audit of the SUA-VLIR Programme by the Evaluation Commission indicated that female academics were clearly under-represented both in the project management of the Programme and as direct beneficiaries (i.e. as recipients of training activities). In fact nearly all of the Programme Coordinators and Project Leaders (in both North and South, with the exception of the Faculty of Science team) were male. This reflects the composition of academic staff in both the Flemish Universities and SUA, where females are clearly under-represented, but the situation is beginning to improve with increased awareness of gender mainstreaming issues. In SUA, for example, only 16% of the academic staff is female. In Phase II, the only Team Leader who was a female was that of Project 5: Faculty of Science. There were female team members in several of the projects who benfited from M.Sc. and Ph.D. scholarships in Flanders during the course of the SUA-VLIR Programme. This in itself has made a meaningful contribution to raising the opportunities available to female academic and technical staff members on the SUA and SMC campuses. Reflecting on the last 10 years of the SUA management of the VLIR-UOS Programme and the results it produced (Annexes 11, 12, 13 and 14), the stakeholders themselves suggested what might have been done differently if the Programme was to be started again today as follows: Designing the programme in such a way that instead of being completely demand-driven, projects would be more oriented towards `win-win' situations; Recognizing that the partner University has existing and functional rules and

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

regulations that have to be followed by the local academic institution(s); Making sure from the outset that rules and regulations are not changed in the middle of implementing an IUC Programme; Ensuring that the partner University insists on donor coordination on its campus; Possibly putting in place in future programmes, procedures and mechanisms for the roll-over of funds from one fiscal year to a defined point in the following fiscal calendar year; Using log-frames more stringently for planning and making sure that reports are more output oriented and outputs relate specifically to the originally stated objectives and activities.

The Evaluation Commission agreed to a major extent with these statements and several of these points are expanded upon in the Recommendations (Section 13). There was an assurance made on several occasions by SUA Senior Management during the final evaluation (and reiterated by the Vice Chancellor even at the SUA-VLIR Closing Ceremony) that the university would play its part in ensuring that every effort will be made to address the issue of sustainability. It should not be forgotten that the SUA Administration itself absorbed many of the staff who had received training by the Programme, particularly those trained under Projects 1 and 2. It was proposed by the SUA administration that the SUA-VLIR Programme Coordination Unit might be retained so as to enhance continuity of effort. It was also made known that the Coordinator and Project Leaders have vowed to sustain the results of the collaboration and to build upon these through the support of the Post-IUC opportunities and through other funding agencies and competitive schemes. There was also recognition on the part of all SUA-VLIR Stakeholders in the North and the South that there is still room for improvement. Much more clearly focussed and demand-driven collaborative work needs to be carried out in the future. SUA has already benefited from the holding of an IFS Workshop on Scientific Proposal Writing which was held in May 2007 at which a total of 24 young staff members and teaching assistants worked on improving their IFS proposals. Of the 24 participants, 17 submitted their reworked proposals to IFS and following scientific evaluation, one received funding, four were rejected but a significant proportion of these (over 70%) received positive responses from the IFS Secretariat and are expected to receive funding following resubmission in subsequent rounds of IFS submissions. On the matter of reporting: it was noted by the Evaluation Commission that many of the Annual Project reports contained sections of information which were often presented in several different formats including print font type, font size and reporting structure. It would be easier for evaluators and other database users if all of the reports were to be presented in tighter more common formats. The difference in presentation of reports was also reflected in the contents of the various databases produced by the PCU for the Final Evaluation. More is mentioned on matters of inconsistency of data presentation in Section 14, specifically under Recommendations to the VLIR Secretariat.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

9

Assessment of the University Partnership

It was the firm opinion of the SUA top management that the Programme had had a long-term positive capacity building impact at SUA through: Staff development through Ph.D. programmes for the present academic staff Research experience, partly in cooperation with Flemish colleagues Expanding and modernising the library Support to establishing and operation of the internet facility at SUA Acquisition of important equipment for research and teaching projects Evaluation of the degree to which these impacts influenced university academic practices were adjudged by the Evaluation Commission through their effects on levels of cooperation and coordination.

cooperation

Between project teams on SUA campus

As mentioned previously, there were some intra-university collaborations stimulated by the SUA-VLIR Programme. In Project 4: Soils and Water, two SUA departments (Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering) began working more closely together than they had been doing in the past. This was undoubtedly brought about by the external collaboration with Flemish partners and it raises the importance of interlinking academic activities within a single university (leading possibly to new research opportunities and new training courses). Another was the interaction between the same project and the Rodent Research team in controlling rodent pest outbreaks in the Lushoto District. Perhaps one missed opportunity of Project 4: Soil and Water was its potential linkages with rural development specialists (e.g. the SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural Development) and socio-economic scientists (in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agri-business) during SUA researchers' interactions with local rural communities in the Uluguru Mountains. These linkages could have developed strongly during Phase II in view of this projects' interest in supporting the local rural communities through research. The location of the emerging Faculty of Science on the SMC with its concentration of effort on teaching large classes of undergraduates made cooperation with colleagues on the main campus in other areas like research awkward. Therefore the latter Project 5 during Phase II received lower scores from the Evaluation Commission for interaction dynamics (average score 1 ­ very poor) and for academic interest and commitment, whereas all of the other projects based on the main campus received scores of `4' or `5' (`good' and `excellent', respectively).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Sokoine National Agricultural Library is now being approached by the URT government and other development partners to offer technical support to institutions interested in computerizing their libraries. Furthermore, two members of library staff from Mekelle University in Ethiopia have now also been trained by the staff of SNAL. The SUA Pest Management Centre (SPMC) has undoubtedly become, during the life of the SUA-VLIR Programme, a focus of excellence for academic research and teaching in pest management nationally, regionally and internationally. At the local level the Centre cooperates closely with the Ministry of Agriculture's Rodent Control Centre adjacent to the SUA Main Campus on forecasting and combating rodent outbreaks in the country. The SPMC also attracts staff and students from universities in SADC countries like South Africa, Swaziland, Namibia and Zambia. The Centre has an exchange programme with the Mekelle University. Two members of academic staff from the latter have been trained twice at SUA PMC. The Centre's excellent record in research and publications has attracted the attention of the international research community, e.g. the International Society of Zoological Sciences in 2007 presented the Centre with free membership up to 2012. The Centre's younger staff members are also applying for competitive research grants from organisations such as the International Foundation for Science, the Third World Academy of Science and the Third World Academy of Science for Women.

Between project teams and other stakeholders (especially off-campus) in the South

SUA research project teams in Pest Management and in Soils and Water have demonstrated that they are willing and highly capable of making working relationships with other groups in the South, particularly ones in Ethiopia. These teams have forged active training and research linkages with Mekelle and Jimma Universities (which are other VLIR-UOS supported campuses). Ethiopian scientists are also visiting PMC to receive training in pest management and data analysis and senior staff of the SPMC are visiting Mekelle on a regular basis to carry out consultancies on the increasing needs in rodent control there. Construction of dry retaining walls on terraced hillsides to reduce runoff has led to a dramatic increase in rodent populations which breed and thrive in the habitats provided within and behind the retaining walls laid down by Soil and Water Conservation efforts in hilly country.

Between academics on the different Flanders University Campuses

Several cases of collaboration between academics in Flemish universities were noted during the duration of the SUA-VLIR Programme. For instance, there had been active cooperation between the Food Science group at the University of Antwerp and academic colleagues in the Food Science Department in the University of Ghent during the postgraduate training of one Ph.D. student during Phase I. Unfortunately this linkage was adversely affected when Food Science was dropped as one of the SUA-VLIR projects in Phase II. There was student exchange and co-supervision between KUL and members of the Soil and Water Project 4 as well as between UA and Rodent Research projects. The University of Antwerp has played an important role in coordinating the financial accounting required for the SUA-VLIR Programme through the personal efforts of Professor Luc D'Haese and this activity involved during the last six years of the Programme a great deal of interaction on a continual basis between this UA and the other Flemish academic centres.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

coordination

At the project level

The Evaluation Commission received little indication that there had been problems of coordination within the different projects based on SUA campus during Phase II (ICT, SNAL, Rodent Research and Soils and Water), as opposed to Phase I. Generally the project teams appeared to have interacted in a cohesive manner and worked as strong academic teams supporting each other's activities and imparting some enthusiasm (and mentoring) to younger staff members and postgraduate students. The coordination of the Faculty of Science was considered the most stretched due to its heavy teaching loads associated with difficult logistical adjustments required when teaching large classes of undergraduate students in a relatively new campus environment. This project had also been planned at a relatively late stage of the Programme formulation (viz. response to question 2.1 by Northern Stakeholders in Appendix 11) and it may have been for this reason also that the project was less effective than it might otherwise have been.

At the SUA campus level

During Phase II, the PCU was operated by two full-time academic staff members who had their own heavy teaching and research duties to attend to during the period of the Programme. This meant that they often had to work long periods out of normal hours to satisfy the AP reporting requirements to UA and VLIR, as well as all of the correspondence that goes with coordination of a Programme involving regular visits by staff members and postgraduate students to Belgium. A few stakeholders wished to let it be known that despite pressures to meet strict submission deadlines for the level of financial and activity reporting expected by VLIR (and which may have led on a number of occasions to raised tensions between members of the South and the North during the Programme), a strong collaborative spirit within the Programme prevailed and the various crises (which can inevitably will arise from time to time in any ten-year programme) were overcome as a result of the strong long-term personal working contacts that formed through the Programme. This strong sense of personal and institutional commitment might not have been present if the Programme had been merely a budget support one rather than a truly collaborative one (viz. responses to question 2.5 and 2.9 in the collective Northern Stakeholder's assessment of management of the SUA-VLIR Programme in Appendix 11). It was somewhat surprising to the Evaluation Commission, however, that the SUA university administration did not see fit to relieve the two members of the Programme Coordination Unit (Dr Peter Mtakwa and Dr Clavery Tungarazu) of some of their teaching and associated academic duties during the life of the SUA-VLIR Programme, especially in view of the fact that a substantial level of funding (23% of the total operational budget) was supporting Programme Coordination. That is not to say that the coordination of project teams was disfunctional but it would be reasonable to expect, in circumstances where a large externally funded Programme involving substantial support to the university aimed at improving infrastructure and human resources, that the two members of staff concerned be relieved of some of their regular academic duties (particularly teaching) so as to fulfil adequately the functions of Programme Coordination. With the benefit of hindsight, had this action been taken it might have proved easier for the Programme Coordination Unit to deliver a regular Programme newsletter and to meet more easily the deadlines set by VLIR for submission of reports and in deliver-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

ing other aspects of Programme support. It clearly had been difficult on a number of occasions for certain coordination functions to be delivered since time pressures and the need to service normal academic duties were sometimes given as reasons as to why certain functions may not have been performed or were arduous (e.g. downsizing the number of regular Local Steering Committee Meetings per year, complaints about too much micro-management involved or the failure to produce a newsletter in Phase II). During interviews it was indicated that there may have been some problems with communication between the various projects at SUA and some misunderstandings between some Project Leaders of project budget allocations, especially during Phase I. With benefit of hindsight, it is perhaps regrettable that during the early part of Phase II it had been decided that Project Leader's meetings on campus would only be held once or twice a year instead of the initially proposed four times scheduled that would be timed to synchronise with the coordination of projects that matched the quarterly VLIR fund disbursements and at which other coordinating functions (like the production of Annual Programme reports) could be organised. Project Leaders meetings were chaired by the SUA Coordinator who occasionally convened special meetings to approve a proposal or act on a call for information. Each Local Steering Committee (LSC) meeting at SUA was usually attended by the Local Coordinator, the Deputy Coordinator, Deans, Directors and Coordinators of Faculties, Institutes and Centres (during the early part of Phase I) and by those mentioned above plus Project Leaders (from 2001 to the end of the Programme at the end of 2006). LSC meetings had been held once or twice a year during Phase I but only once a year just before a Joint Steering Committee Meeting (in which representatives of projects from both the North and South participated). The joint meeting between Northern and Southern stakeholders however could only be held when it was possible for all project leaders to assemble together in either Belgium or Tanzania and over the life of the Programme the JSCM proved to be more of a policy body rather than a progress monitoring one. The reduction in frequency of LSC meetings at SUA during Phase II was considered by some SUA stakeholders to have been one of the reasons why there was possibly a disruption in regular communications and with it possibly a certain loss of cohesion in the Programme on campus. However, the cooperation dynamics completed by each project (in Table 6 below) indicates that interactions between the projects at SUA proceeded in the main smoothly. In the opinion of the Evaluation Commission, the support provided by the main campus for the Faculty of Science at some distance away on the SM campus may not have been as strong as it perhaps could have been despite the fact that the Deputy Coordinator was based on SM campus. Why scores in the cooperation matrix table were not entered by this team in Table 6 might be a reflection of this situation.

At the Flemish University level

The University of Antwerp has played an important role in coordinating the high standards of financial accounting and book-keeping required for the SUA-VLIR Programme through the personal efforts of Professor Luc D'Haese. This activity during the last six years of the Programme has led to a great deal of interaction on a continual basis between the Programme Manager based at UA and with other colleagues based in Flemish academic centres. In most cases, there was agreement among all of the Northern partners that involvement in the SUA-VLIR Programme has been a rewarding and useful experience from the academic and personal points of view (see Table 7).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

At the Programme Level

There is no doubt that coordination at a personal level (through face-to-face interactions with fellow academicians) has helped to strengthen the involvement and stakeholder ownership of the SUA-VLIR Programme in both the North and South components of the Programme. The presence of one or two individual academics manning the Programme Coordination Units in both sectors of the Programme has been an asset rather than a disadvantage to continuity and this is reflected also in the self assessment of the North (Annex 11). In fact, most project teams have decided to continue regular contact meetings, academic interactions and collaboration in the framework of other ongoing projects (particularly NORAD's PANTIL programme). Having a definite starting and ending point always instils discipline in the partner university to learn before it is `weaned'. Co-formulation of the SUA-VLIR Programme and its constituent projects helped to build up strong inter-personal relations between Flemish collaborators and members of the SUA project teams and in some cases even between some members of the SUA campus itself. The SUA Project groups considered the build-up of strong personal contacts as being of special value (Annex 14). These were very crucial to the attainment of the objectives of the collaboration. A strong host centre (at UA) very much helped to cushion SUA from delayed disbursements from VLIR. UA even made advance payments to ensure that some funding was at least available for projects at the appointed time. If the latter had not been the case, especially after the management difficulties faced in Phase I (details below), then the various successes achieved by the SUA-Flemish institutional collaboration would have been much reduced or even jeopardised totally. Furthermore, the support provided to the Programme by the Flemish counterparts in most cases was considered by stakeholders interviewed to have invigorated the Project Leaders at SUA, as well as the respective team members, to proceed to work in a concerted manner knowing that their efforts would eventually be recognised in view of the structured nature of the collaboration which operated within a defined yet protracted timeframe.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

1

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1 0

Budgetary Issues

Originally the programme was planned to begin in September 1997, with the expectations that the Cooperation Agreement would have been signed. However, the Agreement was not signed until November 1997. This affected the SUA-VLIR Programme in three ways as follows:7 Delayed release of funds: Funds for the 1997/98 budgetary year were first released to UA in late February 1998, and the projects then received the first disbursement in March 1998, three months before the 12-month cycle of the first programme year that was to end in June 30th 1998. Therefore, the first programme year was technically `reduced' to one quarter (March-June 1998), rather than the four quarters as planned. Delayed launching of the specific Projects: Planned activities for 1997 could only start at the earliest in April 1998 only after funds had been received. Since some activities were timetabled to coincide with seasonal events (like rainfall), some of the planned activities had to be shelved, reduced or altered for 1998/99 to take advantage of the three months to the end of the first budget year. As a result, all of the deliverables, except investments, for 1997/98 fell short of target. This was most obvious with respect to staff training, curriculum review and research, and Change of budgets: Delays in disbursement of funds and launching specific programme activities affected the utilisation of funds as per the agreement. Since the Programme implementers at SUA were aware of the rule that no money allocated for specific activities in any specific year could be carried forward, when money arrived late there was fear of `losing' the ear-marked funds. Thus, in most instances, the line item allocations were altered and greater emphasis then placed on investments and operational activities, at the expense of staff development and field research. The implementation of various activities in each component accelerated in 1998, after the disbursement of funds, and then grew gradually throughout the years 1998, 1999 and 20008. Apart from the 1997/98 Programme Year, there have been no serious deviations between planned and the actual implementation of the programme. However, most of activities in all the components have been somehow scaled down and/or delayed due to faltering and erratic disbursement and the lack of sufficient funds, so much so that it has only been by the implementation of monetary advances from SUA and UA, and understanding on the part of VLIR, that the Programme has been able to recover from the various delays in planned disbursements. This has meant that for most planned project activities the values of annual allocations have been less than originally expected (see Annex 16). The various reasons for this have been given by stakeholders as follows: Exchange rate changes. The USD currency was used for the conversion of BEF into Tsh. The initially indicated total annual budget, as a guideline for

7 Annual Activity Report 1997/98 of the UA Coordinator 8 Annual Activity Reports of various years.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Table 6 : Cooperation Dynamics of the different projects in the SUA-VLIR Programme (where 1 = planned results have not been achieved and 5 = results better than planned)

component ict Snal rodent research Soils and water 4 (4) 4 (3) 4 (4) Faculty of Science Not provided (3) Not provided (2) Not provided (2) Not provided (2) Not provided (1) Not provided (2) mean value of assessment and mean ec score 4 (4) 4 (3) 4 (4)

understanding, and adherence to agreed plans Quality of communication involvement in Programme and Project levels: vision, development, planning, budgeting and reporting academic interest and commitment (collaboration beyond PP, personal commitment) Scope of cooperation (teams, attention to institutional environment, active sourcing of expertise) opening up international networking

3 (4)a 4 (3) 5 (4)

3 (4) 3 (4) 4 (3)

4 (5) 4 (5) 4 (5)

5 (3) 5 (5) 4 (5)

n/a (3) 4 (3) 4 (3)

5 (5) 4 (5) 5 (5)

4 (4) 4 (4) 4 (3)

5 (3) 4 (4) 4 (4)

a Scores in parentheses represent the scores attributed by the evaluation commission (ec) the cooperation dynamics assessment above showed that all collaborators assessed the South ­ north collaboration as being a success and that the collaboration between north and South had worked well. it was significant that the Faculty of Science project team did not consider this part of the Self assessment as being relevant.

project planning, was US$750,000, or US$675 K after deduction of administrative costs. At that time, the equivalent of this was around 23 million BEF. Since 1997, the value of the BEF compared to the US$ decreased by around 20% (before the euro became the operational currency in Belgium). However, many of the administration/coordination costs also included a proportion of costs for maintenance of the four vehicles purchased for the Programme and other project related costs which were not strictly coordination costs. Coordination and administrative costs. Project 8, SUA Programme Coordination Unit accounted for 25% of total allocations (10% administrative costs included). This was because many common Programme costs (like those required for running the four Programme vehicles, for international travel by coordinators and other additional costs directly associated with an international exchange programme) were also charged to the PCU (rather than to the individual project budgets). This inflated its expenditure level appreciably over and above the basic administration cost level of 10% total budget. The actual administration cost for the SUA Programme Coordination Unit however averaged out over the whole Programme to around 5% of the overall "Operational" budget. Although the relatively high cost of the SUA coordination unit was perhaps a negative feature of the Programme, it has upon reflection been fully understandable in view of the numerous difficulties that were being faced in SUA Programme Management during Phase I. During the first five years the coordination absorbed 25% of all the funds in support of SUA-VLIR activities (as against the 10% total operational costs actually budgeted for). The PCU also supported a large number of staff (two drivers, two accountants, a cook and others), many of whom manned the guesthouse on campus which housed visitors during their attachments at SUA9. Topping up allowances were also paid to the Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator and to all Project Leaders during Phase

9 The guesthouse is still used by collaborating scientists and visitors from Ethiopia (see under Section 10.1)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

I and the first half of Phase II supposedly to reimburse staff for time spent on Programme activities. These were paid out of the PCU budget. However to the Evaluation Team this practice seems most inappropriate in view of the fact that academic staff of the university are already paid a full salary for their services and the Programme activities should be viewed as part of an academic's normal duties. The payment of top-up allowances also probably caused some resentment amongst other colleagues on campus who were not directly involed in the Programme. It was claimed by the PCU that it would have been disastrous to reduce the PCU budget during Phase II because vehicle maintenance costs were increasing as Programme vehicles aged. The staff of the PCU argued that whereas other projects could scale down their activities through, for example, laying off support staff (since research activities were being scaled down), the need to retain PCU staff was greater as the Programme neared completion because of the need to finalise accounts, and the need to write final reports among other things. The PCU staff therefore claimed that they could not realistically reduce coordination costs without negatively affecting the whole Programme. Financial procedures. Some money had to be returned (i.e. it was not allowed to be rolled over into the following fiscal year and a substantial amount of money was consequently no longer available to the Programme. This was necessary in view of the fact that the reporting and accounting of spending during the fiscal year 1999 was unclear and undefined (apparent from the figures shown in Appendix 16). Furthermore, there were some disbursements which had been held back pending final approval of annual accounts and others may have been treated as rejected expenditure ex post. Unknown expenses. For almost three years during Phase I, VLIR-UOS Programme funds were covering the costs of an expatriate technical expert, seconded by UA to the Rodent Research Centre (SPMC) attached to Project 3: Rodent Research. The money at the time was being deducted without SUA's knowledge because it was not explicitly budgeted for in SUA's annual budgets, and also because the actual recurrent expenses were not visible at the SUA end. Not surprisingly, this set of circumstances did not help to build confidence in the then developing relationship between the North and the South Stakeholders.

Consequently for a period during Phase I, annual budget allocations to the various SUA-VLIR projects were `negotiated' and `decided upon' on a rather ad hoc basis within the total available funds every year, and not necessarily according to initially agreed project budgets. According to the Flemish coordinator at that time10, a `rule of thumb' based on actual allocations for the initial year for splitting the total available amounts across the components, was supposed to serve as a guideline for annual allocations. Apparently such a rule was not applied for much of the period of Phase I (1997 ­ 2001) and the same situation then ran over into the early part of Phase II (2002 ­ 2003). In the first budget year 1997 - 1998, SUA forfeited a large sum of money that could not be used and accounted for by 30th June 1998 (the end of the budget year), despite the fact that the money had been delivered to SUA (albeit somewhat late). According to the SUA coordinator at the time, 4.8 million BEF had to be returned and was therefore `lost' from the project. These issues subsequently affected the way the activities within all the seven components have been carried out throughout the next three years. SUA management and the PCU often made quick decisions to utilise funds that were dis10 Northern Stakeholders' self assessment (Appendix 12)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

bursed late before the end of financial year. For example, there were occasions when SUA spent money on items that were not budgeted for, e.g. buying programme vehicles and a generator that serves the whole university, for fear of forfeiting earmarked funds. It was therefore inevitable that some of the budgets for some planned activities (e.g. the Faculty of Science situation identified under Table 16) suffered adversely under these circumstances. It would appear that as a result of such events, it was regrettably staff development and collaborative research that suffered the most. PriceWaterhouseCoopers concluded in its first audit during late 2002 that the financial statements presented were "a true and fair view of the state of the financial affairs of SUA-VLIR Programme and of its income and expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2002". However, it did note that there were some areas of internal control weaknesses which PWC reported in detail in a Management Letter to SUA Management together with recommendations to remedy those weaknesses. An annual financial audit was thereafter carried out every year of the SUA-VLIR Programme by the same firm and as a result financial procedures tightened to the satisfaction of all concerned and they followed strictly the rules of the local taxation authorities. An overall summary of the total amounts transferred to SUA during the 10-year programme are shown in Annex 16. At SUA, the mandate for the management of donor-funded activities is the Directorate of Research and Post Graduate Studies (DRPGS). The DRPGS therefore handled the VLIR programme from the beginning as it does at the present time for projects funded by NORAD, the largest donor to SUA. DRPGS normally requires 5% of total project expenditures for this service to cover administrative costs. While this arrangement worked well for other donors, the relationship of DRPGS to the VLIR Partner Programme was apparently characterised by conflicts. Two main reasons were pointed out for this as follows: The accounting specifications imposed by VLIR could not easily be accommodated within the existing computerised accounting system (i.e. HOGIA) at SUA. Furthermore, as the external audit stated, the VLIR regulations were in general "not well understood at SUA". As it developed, the SUA-VLIR coordination office established its own accounting system independent of the official accounts maintained by the Bursar's office. This `double' arrangement of accounts is the key reason for the inconsistencies and confusion in accounting and book-keeping which occurred during Phase I. The "unofficial" accounts, aiming to meet the requirements of VLIR, were never reconciled to bank balances while the official reconciled accounts (according to SUA budget lines) were not acceptable to VLIR. Inconsistent accounts were sent to UA to be consolidated and forwarded to VLIR, while the official reconciled reports were not provided to either the SUA PCU or to UA. DRPGS deducted 5 % administrative costs from the first three disbursements of VLIR funds, according to their normal practice, before this was noticed. Such costs at the Partner University, i.e. SUA, had to be recorded by submission of relevant invoices to be approved11. Meanwhile, the coordinating university in Belgium, University of Antwerp (UA), was not required to document administrative costs, although 5% total VLIR funds received were automatically attributed to administration costs. By the time of the Mid-Term evaluation mission in 2001, DRPGS claimed that US$42,000 was being recorded as `outstanding' from the Partner Programme.

11 DRPGS's files show that "Annoted Budget Structure" dated April 1998 was received only late July/early August 1998.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Following a need for clarity, the SUA project leaders were requested to produce annual budgets in advance of the following fiscal year. These, however, often added up to totals far exceeding available funds. It was therefore up to the Flemish and the local SUA coordinator to decide upon the final allocations. This action may well have led to the perceived problems in budget allocations to some of the projects at SUA since the various project leaders may not have been involved in the decision making process The SUA-VLIR Programme has been characterised by some seemingly arbitrary decision making as to the allocation of annual funds, especially during its early stages. Delays in the disbursements of funds caused a slow take-off and development of planned activities and naturally difficulties arose in meeting agreed time-bound commitments. The Belgian regulations stating that end-of-year balances are not allowed to be carried forward, but must be returned, made delays in disbursements from Belgium inevitable. The VLIR condition that annual accounts must have its final approval before the annual budget is fully disbursed, is one factor which caused significant delays in project activities. Also, it was problematic that SUA was required to reimburse the Programme any expenditure rejected ex post ­ in many cases for reasons unknown to SUA ­ by the Belgian audit procedures. This is the main reason for a lack of detailed figures on expenditure being available for the 1999 financial year (see Annex 16). In summary, the dialogue and information flow relating to the VLIR Partner Programme during Phase I was not open and effective. During those unsettling times it was suggested by many that it would have been better if the SUA Administration could have communicated with the VLIR Secretariat directly, rather than always through the Programme Coordinator based at UA. It was therefore the hope of the SUA management in 2001 that the new incoming Flemish coordinator would act in an expeditious fashion to eradicate the mistrust and misunderstandings between colleagues and partner institutions, so that a good working relationship could take over. This fortunately proved to be the case during and the Evaluation Commission believes that much of the credit for the many beneficial outputs of the SUA-VLIR Programme should go to the various members of SUA top management in post since 2001 and to Professor Luc D'Haese (Programme Coordinator at UA) and Dr P.W.Mtakwa particularly in bringing about a transformation in terms of more open reporting of budget plans, financial accounting and book-keeping.

Information and viewpoints stated by VLIR Secretariat and the UA administration12

As in all cases involving misunderstandings, there are always at least two points of view from two or more perspectives. From the perspective of the VLIR Secretariat, the design of the SUA-VLIR Programme in terms of components (i.e. projects) to be included was the sole responsibility of SUA. It was never the intention of VLIR or the UA administration to interfere in the internal organisation of the IUC programme at SUA. VLIR/UA only used the Belgian government regulations as a guide to eligible expenses and accounting formats. From the very beginning, VLIR/UA trusted that SUA had adequate management capacity to run the Programme (otherwise the Programme would never have been accepted in the first place since an extensive review is normally undertaken to assess the suitability of university institutions to become VLIR-UOS Partners). However, as the Programme progressed there was a need to try to clarify and stress the importance of certain so-called `imposed' rules.

12 Reactions and comments to the Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report of October 8, 2001.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

VLIR commissioned the external audit only after a year of complaints from SUA project leaders and researchers. By that time, all research activities had come to a standstill due to lack of available funds being released by VLIR to SUA. These problems had been communicated directly to the top management of SUA, but regrettably without any immediate resolution of the problems. The local co-ordinating office also put pressure on VLIR to take action in order to safeguard the entire SUA-VLIR Programme. Even in a situation of possible suspicion of abuse of funds, VLIR in good faith transferred an advance payment of BEF 2 million to SUA to cover the most urgent expenses. Only in May 2001 did VLIR demand that IUC funds at SUA should be handled directly by the SUA-VLIR coordination office (the PCU). In fact it was the SUA PCU which explicitly requested this condition. These actions showed how determined all parties were to solve the difficulties and that is to everyone's credit and desire for understanding. According to both the South and North stakeholders interviewed, communication between the SUA PCU and the coordination office at UA was always open and frank. It was therefore the impression of the VLIR Secretariat and the UA administration that miscommunication between different levels of the administration at SUA may have been at the basis of any misunderstandings. During Phase I, the regulations and requirements for certain standards of bookkeeping and financial management at UA and SUA were not complimentary leading to difficulties with project management. Substantial improvements to these issues were made during the formulation and execution of Phase II. The pre-advancing of funds to SUA by UA has ensured timely delivery of finance thereby helping to reduce delays in local and international procurements. Frequency of local steering committee meetings at which consensus should have been reached among PL's on SUA campus and the PCU regarding funding apportionment may not have been as frequent as originally planned and agreed at the beginning of Phase II. Later in Phase II, it was decided to have only two meetings per annum of the local steering committee (instead of the scheduled four). This reduction in frequency was determined by the shortage of time that PL's had to attend such meetings and the fact that budgets were beginning to be scaled down as part of the last three years of the VLIR-UOS Programme scheme. However, the coordination of disbursements of VLIR-UOS funds to the respective projects at SUA might, in retrospect, have been better served by having four meetings every year around the time that fund tranches were received from Belgium. This might have avoided any unexpected failures of funds to reach the respective parts of projects on the SUA campuses for which they were originally intended. This was especially pertinent when minor complaints were reported to the Evaluation Commission that some project leaders were not able to make planned requisitions for equipment or obtain the necessary financial support for training staff because of the response from the PCU relating to `non-availability of funds' and yet several budgets belonging to certain relevant activities were often being shown as under-spent at year-end. As mentioned earlier, the Faculty of Science (Project 6) was unable to honour some of its planned activities due to under-budgeting of some of its ongoing activities, name-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

ly, training; it thus had to relocate its funds in order to ensure those students completed their studies. Moreover, since several of the FoS Ph.D. students completed their studies after the Programme had come to an end in 2006, some funds had to be reserved (set aside) so that these scholars could still be supported after the programme officially terminated. The issue of the roll-over of funds from one fiscal year into at least a part of the next fiscal year was brought up during discussions between the Evaluation Team and various stakeholders on campus. SUA stakeholders still have a strong preference for this type of financial arrangement in lieu of the need to utilize all of the funds committed to a certain fiscal period before the last day in the financial year. This, it was felt, could have avoided the need for either `panic' buying, or for sending persons for training at an inconvenient time during the academic season when teaching or other academic activities might have been at a peak. The need for roll-over budgeting arrangements is more obvious in cases where there is a relatively slow tendering process (run along Government lines which are not only bureaucratic but lengthy). It is apparently a common experience for SUA projects not to be able to complete purchases in time before the incoming fiscal calendar which means more often than not that funds had to be returned to VLIR-UOS before they were spent. This fear was always there despite the fact that the VLIR Secretariat and the Programme Managers at UA often adopted a very lenient posture in these awkward circumstances.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1 1

Overall Programme Assessment

Outline assessments and points of view of the overall management of the SUAVLIR Programme from a Northern Stakeholder and a Southern Stakeholder perspective are summarised in Annexe 12 and 13, respectively. The SUA-VLIR Programme (and the specific projects in which it was engaged) has created substantial academic development and capacity building on both the main SUA campus and on the SMC. It has created added value by giving SUA an increasing reputation of being a centre for research and teaching of agriculture and related sciences within both the EA and SADC regions. SUA should now be in a better position than ever before to start attracting more funding for research and teaching by developing demand-driven academic funding proposals and by being better able to deliver consultancies in the regions (see Recommendations Section 13). The Programme fulfilled a unique type of sustained funding needed where universities in the North work hand-in-hand with those in the South to solve problems that would otherwise be impossible if either party worked alone. There existed (and still do exist) very good interpersonal relations across the projects in the South and the North. This was evident during the interviews that the Evaluation Commission held with both sets of Stakeholders. Generally, the programme management is now reported by all stakeholders to be good. Effective communication, monitoring and critical review by South and North partners were cited as having become good practices that enhanced the overall management of the Programme during its ten years. The original design and the redesigning every year of projects were carried out through a close collaboration between North and South stakeholders. These are some of the comments made by the project leaders and their colleagues in relation to the SUA-VLIR Programme: Comments in parenthesis have been added by the Evaluation Commission to underline certain characteristics and benefits of the VLIR-UOS Programme's function. "We recognised a (new) framework which was able to prevent and solve problems"; "Objectives were very clear to all partners and everybody focussed on the objectives of each project" (works well for research-based activities); "There appears to be a strong institutional support for the IUC programme and projects in both the North and the South". (The contents of Annexes 7 and 8 demonstrate this conclusion); "Many personal relationships were built over the 10 years the programme was running between the North and the South"(a definite strength); "Project leaders and team members from the North and South developed personal networks that were the `glue' of the partnership. This is a social capital

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Table 7 : Summary of scores attributed by teams in the North on the effects of the VLIR UOS Programme on their own academic activities

where 1 = substantial and 4 = little or none for Sections 1 and 2 ict Snal rodent Soil and water 1 2 3 1 2 3 Faculty of Science 3 2 3 3 3 3

assessment of the institutional impact in the north resulting from the iuc project enhancing the interest in development cooperation among the academic staff in your research unit active involvement in development cooperation among the academic staff in your unit improvement in reputation and standing of your research unit in the faculty, institute or at international level, eg. positive appreciation in terms of internationalisation, etc) collaboration with other universities in Flanders improvement in international networking and linkage ability of your research unit increase in income generating potential of your research unit (research funds or consultancies) assess the academic impact of the iuc Project curriculum offered in belgium (quantity and quality), eg new courses, revised curricula, etc contribution to the knowledge base concerning the project topic at the level of your research unit ability to publish regarding the topic concerned ability to attend and contribute to conferences regarding the topic concerned ability to use linkages in the South to access further funding for research ability to attract foreign Ph.d. scholars in this field Personal impact of the iuc Project for you as an individual (where 1 = positive, 5 = negative) relations with colleagues, eg in view of possible absences from lab or taking up staff and resources to host visits relations with superiors (dean), eg in view of above mentioned in 3.1 extent to which the implementation of the Project is having an influence on your other assignments at the institute (teaching, management tasks, research, etc) For your academic career For your academic recognition at your institute (the institute uses your international contacts, knowledge etc) accessibility to, or membership of decision making bodies at national level (ngo's, governing bodies) accessibility to, or membership of decision making bodies at international level (ngo's, universities, un or other international organisations, international research centres, etc)

a

3 4 2 3 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

a

1

2 1 2 1 1

2 4 4 4 4 3

4 4 4 3 4 3

4 2 1 1 1 2

n/a 2 2 2 3 2

4 3 3 3 2 2

1 3 3 3 3 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 1 3 1 2 3 2

1 3 2 3 3 2 3

1 1 3 3 3 2 2

Figures underlined indicate that stakeholders considered that there were substantial beneficial effects of participation in the Sua-vlir initiative. in a few cases (shaded numbers) the effects were negative. interestingly these were registered by the academics who were involved in the service provision projects (ict and Snal). the perceived negative effects of involvement of academics in the Snal, rodent research and Faculty of Science projects (which scored `4' for irrelevance to curriculum development in belgium) was noted and indicated that there should perhaps be a better linkage between research and teaching to encourage research-led teaching initiatives in the future.

which will survive long beyond the lifetime of the Programme'. (The Evaluation Commission note that this is a significant component of `sustainability' in any academic or development context). "The support provided to the Programme invigorated the Project Leaders as well as their team members to work to their utmost, knowing that their effort was recognised". (The Evaluation Commission notes that the word `support' used here means more than just the financial kind ­ mentoring and shared experiences counted for a great deal of the support provided by the Programme); "Frequent consultation and communication between partners in the North and South". (This proves the last point precisely!); `Shared commitment to high academic standards in research and teaching'. (This is an important element in helping to raise academic standards. Inevitably a certain amount of peer review tends to be in-built into any dual and shared academic activity).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1 2

Conclusions

Over 4.83 million were provided by VLIR-UOS in support of the SUA-VLIR Programme during the 10-year collaboration (Annex 6). Of this total, ca 70% (3.381 million) was disbursed to SUA in the South and ca. 30% (1.449 million) to Flemish Universities in the North. The latter component supported SUA scholars, project leaders and SUA PCU staff visiting Flanders (Annex 16). The total investments made by VLIR on SUA campus amounted to 1,122,244 (Annex 15). This represented a third of the total provision and as such has made a substantial contribution to university capacity building in the South, for which SUA and the Flemish Universities expressed during interviews their shared gratitude. The mean combined coordination costs (South + North) over the 10-year programme ran at 19% total funding provision annually. The financial and academic support has undoubtedly improved levels of student and staff training at SUA, provided essential ICT infrastructure, improved library facilities, raised academic standards and has undoubtedly led to raised levels of collaborative research activity. The latter now increases opportunities for SUA staff to participate in competitive funding schemes at both regional and international levels. The overall objective of the VLIR-UOS Programme `to enhance the quality of university education in developing countries through the establishment of a durable partnership between Flemish University and selected counterpart institutions in developing countries' has been achieved in the case of SUA, especially in relation to service provision (the ICT and SNAL components), in strengthening research teams (the Rodent and Soil/Water components) and in assisting SUA develop a new science faculty (component 6). Most of the specific objectives have also been realised and have enabled the laying of a solid foundation for development of future academic research and teaching activities on the SUA main campus. The Evaluation Commission noted that most of the interim recommendations made in the Mid-term evaluation on matters concerning management and coordination of specific programme components had been were taken on board by the projects concerned and that appropriate changes to procedures had been made to accommodate the recommendations. Not implemented was the production of a regular SUA-VLIR newsletter to keep all stakeholders (particularly those members of SUA not involved directly with the Programme activities) informed of developments and outputs from the various projects being undertaken by the Programme. The majority of the specific project-orientated activities planned have been accomplished to the apparent satisfaction of both the North and South stakeholders. Some significant changes to the work plans of some projects, e.g. Project 4: Soil and Water, were required to take account of major changes in seasonal climate (particularly rainfall

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

distributions related to planting and the timing of the onset of the main rains) or in the case of Project 5 Phase II (Faculty of Sciences), the alteration in training schedules for some of its staff due to pressures of teaching timetables and the shortage of budgeted funds to complete some of this project's activities. The integration of advanced training within the framework of an ongoing research programme involving both North and South scientists, as was achieved under the SUAVLIR Programme, provides maximum support for the development of the trainee scientist whose central involvement in an academic programme enables him or her to be usually retained by the university upon return to their home country. The extremely high value of this nature of support gives to research teams that are engaged in investigations of applied development significance and relevance can not be overestimated. The involvement of Flemish academics with special interests in the challenges of carrying out research and teaching activities under difficult circumstances in developing countries also enriches the experiences of academics in the North. This was the general impression heard over and over again in the self assessments submitted for the Final Evaluation, during interviews and by delegates at the VLIR Policy workshop and ten year celebrations held in Brussels in March, 2008. SUA must take heart from the fact that because it was one of the first VLIR InterUniversity Collaborative Programmes to be formulated, it inadvertently acted as the proverbial `guinea pig'. The university however became a proving ground through which later more improved IUC programmes at other institutions around the developing world were evolved. Its pioneering contribution to the newer South-North university partnership programmes should not therefore go unrecognised.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1 3

Recommendations

The recommendations of the Evaluation Commission are made on three levels: at the Project level, at the Programme level and at the VLIR Secretariat level.

at the Project level

The project leaders and team members of the South and North who were involved in the SUA-VLIR programme (1997-2006) are recommended to encourage their colleagues on all of the SUA campuses to consider seriously the possibility of submitting a new proposal to VLIR-UOS for the establishment of a second VLIR-UOS initiative between SUA and Flemish universities. This would have the potential of fostering a major development in university institutional capacity in the South. The new partnership, if formulated, should involve the participation of academic groups in SUA other than those who have already been directly involved in the current SUA-VLIR Programme. The proposal should also be designed to encourage the development of stronger interdepartmental and intra-faculty linkages at SUA. The new proposal could involve another university in Tanzania (in other words developing a multi-campus South-South-North collaboration). The latter could possibly be one of the `younger' newly formed university establishments pursuing agriculture and natural resource academic programmes. One example might be the Catholic University of Mwanza located on the southern shores of Lake Victoria. The Mwanza location would also support the academic work of SUA staff interested in wetland agriculture, lake ecology, aquaculture and many other scientific pursuits of relevance to the Lake Region. The location of Mwanza would also encourage collaborative team research efforts through initiatives such as the VicRes scheme funded by SIDA. An initiative such as this would build upon a proven working relationship between SUA and its Flemish counterparts and would bring in a newly fledged university within the same country developing its academic profile in the natural sciences. SUA stakeholders in the SUA-VLIR Programme now need to work more collectively in a strategic manner to attract and carry out more national, regional and international demand-driven consultancies, especially those related to agriculture and forestry in the fields of poverty reduction, food security, global environmental change and pest (rodent) control management. Through the SUA-VLIR Programme, the teams in ICT, SNAL, Rodent Research, Soil and Water Research and Faculty of Sciences are rendering valuable services to local society. This is well recognised in the Morogoro Municipality. From the Evaluation Commission's viewpoint, these activities could be more widely publicised in the popu-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

lar press and "marketed" more proactively by SUA. This might help to increase the university's own leverage potential in lobbying the URT government to allocate more funds to support its core training and research budgets in the future. SUA should continue to meet the costs of its internet connection, which has been already been met in part during Phase II of the SUA-VLIR programme from VLIR funds. This might be best organised through some form of proportional cost sharing arrangement (by budget capping) on-campus between all of the Faculties: each thereby contributing a proportional share towards the total costs of the service, since internet connectivity is nowadays the life-line of any university. The ICT service established by means of the VLIR Programme is an essential platform upon which networks and academic sharing initiatives can flourish in the future and new funding opportunities evolved through international communications. With respect to the further development of new courses at the Faculty of Sciences on SMC, additional General Science courses such as the proposed Microbiology course should be introduced with some care. Courses of this nature might also be specific to certain specialised programmes such as Soil Science etc. which are located at the SUA main campus. Moving them or concentrating them on SMC will create substantial transport costs and might deplete unnecessarily the existing research laboratory facilities on Main Campus. It is also recommended that the communication skills course perhaps move out of the Faculty of Sciences to the Department of Agricultural Extension in the Faculty of Agriculture so that it can benefit directly from the audio-visual facilities already based there. Alternatively investing in a language laboratory on SMC might be actively considered to support basic university training language skills and extra-mural activities that will impact local community development. Opportunities for networking with other VLIR-UOS universities in the South should be expanded so as to ensure the sustainability and further development of existing academic activities initiated under the VLIR-UOS Partnership Programme. This activity could reduce SUA's current reliance and dependency on direct aid from international donors. Networking initiatives that operate on a South-South (-North/West/ East) basis are very likely to be viewed extremely positively by funding agencies that provide competitive research grants for trans-boundary research projects (like VicRes) and/or shared teaching initiatives. The various donors currently supporting SUA should be invited to hold joint meetings on a regular annual basis with senior SUA management teams so as to coordinate their various inputs into the university in a more integrated complimentary fashion than possibly occurs at present. This avoids donor funds being used to develop multiple arrays of new initiatives when there may be a need to develop one or two critical fundamental facilities as a first step. The internet connectivity issue is one good example of this where concentration of existing donor activity in one key area could make a substantial difference to the way SUA is able to develop and increase viable long-term initiatives, which themselves will foster sustainability, networking and university capacity building in the EA and SADC regions. During the SUA-VLIR `post-UOS phase', established SUA project teams should be encouraged to find new mechanisms for facilitating inter- and intra-disciplinary (inter-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

department/faculty) academic activities on-campus so that the university's teaching, research and extension programmes can benefit from added-value initiatives like joint course development and research on cross-cutting subjects like food security, global environmental change and its impacts on rural livelihoods, consultancies and government advocacy missions. A webpage dedicated to new initiatives on campus that can updated weekly on the LAN could be one way of achieving this using the newly acquired expertise of ICT and SNAL staff in webpage design and software management. One missed opportunity during the SUA-VLIR Programme appears to have been formation of an active working linkage between the Centre for Sustainable Rural Development and the Soil and Water Conservation Project 4 in the development of the Uluguru Mountain initiatives.

at the Programme level

The opportunities created by VLIR-UOS partnerships for increasing South-South, South-South-North and North-North networks has been clearly shown by the outputs of the SUA-VLIR Programme, of which SUA and the Flemish universities and their related stakeholders should be justifiably pleased. The academic opportunities that the VLIR-UOS collaborative programme created have been of benefit and their subsequent medium and long term impacts on academic development at SUA depend on the degree to which the human and physical resources set in place are now exploited to the full. Opportunities for networking with other VLIR-UOS universities in the South and Flemish institutions of higher education in the North should continue therefore to be explored vigorously. This activity will support the sustainable development of existing academic activities started under the SUA-VLIR partnership programme. Networking requires a mixture of individual and institutional commitment. The SUA-VLIR Programme illustrated very well how significant strong personal and professional ties can be in sustaining a network or project when it hits a "bad patch". The resolve and sense of compromise to do the best for the Programme was an outstanding feature of the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme. The value of the already produced South-South and South-South-North products of the SUA-VLIR programme should not be underestimated in their capacities to enhance SUA and its partners in regional and international collaborations. It would be good to see stronger linkages being developed between SUA and the University of Zambia (in veterinary sciences for example) and between SUA and the Universities of Nairobi and Moi in Kenya and the University of Zimbabwe in various disciplines linked with natural resource management especially those highlighting emerging complex cross-cutting thematic areas like global climate change and food security.

at the vlir Secretariat level

The External Evaluation Commission wishes to congratulate VLIR on developing a truly worthwhile and valuable university collaborative programme. When compared with many other northern donor-mediated university collaboration programmes, e.g. the Swedish Sida-SAREC university collaboration programme, the UK British

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Council Higher Education Development Initiative and the Dutch NPT university collaboration model, VLIR-UOS is special in terms of its longevity of sustained support and in its ability to support multiple horizontal and vertical levels of interaction in developing academic capacity on campuses in the South. This support proceeds too in tandem with the goals of bilateral aid aimed at improving the education standards and enabling trained individuals to rise above the poverty threshold in many countries. The way in which the VLIR-UOS partnership programme has evolved since the latter half of the 1990's satisfies many of the objectives of the Paris Declaration in its attention to promote ownership, funding alignments and donor-donor harmonisation. For instance, the two-year preparatory stage allows sufficient time for decisions and collaborative plans to be laid out in detail so that a meaningful relationship between the North and South university institutions can develop. The two-phase 5-year + 5-year periods of academic collaboration (subject to satisfactory completion of Phase I) allow also for the development of a meaningful interaction between project teams based in the South and the North. Even if collaborations falter there appears to be a sense of commitment created by the interwoven structure of the projects and coordination mechanisms. All of these characteristics of the VLIR-UOS model (and the fact that it lasts for 17 years in total) provide the best chances that truly sustainable outputs will be produced in some of the projects in any given Partnership. As previously stated, lessons learned on the SUA-VLIR initiative during its formative stages (1997-2002) have helped to build more satisfactory and productive IUC Programmes between Flemish university teams and other universities based in the developing world. There are many challenges with programmes like the VLIR-UOS for both the senior management of a recipient institution and the VLIR Secretariat in monitoring their many activities. For senior management on the university campuses, preventing divisions between departments and research teams is a real challenge. For example, departments which are included in a long term cooperation where the opportunities are many for strengthening a discipline through scholarships and equipment purchases can be viewed resentfully (or even enviously) by neighbouring groups who feel exclusion rather than involvement in a team (i.e. the campus community) benefiting from a valuable initiative. The long-term NORAD support to SUA is more generally distributed over the campus and is of a more flexible nature (being more akin to `budget' support). VLIR on the other hand supports project-specific activities that are strongly result-orientated and which, to a certain degree, may be selected to match the Flemish universities' own strengths and interests instead of focussing on the immediate needs of the collaborating institution. The Secretariat should be sensitised to the notion that VLIR-UOS system could be considered by some in the South as an "imposed" form of collaboration instead of a more supportive and proactive one. With an increasing number of IUC Programmes around the world, the VLIR Secretariat may already have become overloaded with tasks and is at full stretch trying to cope with the many IUC Programmes and their associated activities. The VLIR management is no doubt acutely aware of this problem but it should always be in mind that even the shining kettle becomes tarnished with age and overuse and may need polishing through consolidation in quality and not so much proliferation in quantity. VLIR-UOS should take measures to simplify wherever possible its procedural frameworks and mechanisms to avoid the necessity of having to change rules and regulations half way through a schedule of financial disbursements. This, it is appreciated,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

has already been done to a large extent in the cases of many newer IUC Programmes as a direct result of experiences gained from initiatives like the SUA-VLIR Programme. It would also be much better if in future VLIR could be more flexible in accepting and allowing the South institutions to use their existing book-keeping and accounting system for the VLIR programme, instead of having to comply in a very rigid way with the systems that are operational in Belgium. Obviously there are tremendous advantages with being as synchronous as possible as far as financial management is concerned but local internal and external auditing systems have been developed over the years to ensure that funds are used for the purposes for which they were originally intended. VLIR-UOS financial management rules should therefore be of sufficient flexibility to allow the smoother integration of the indigenous rules established by the partner universities in the South and the systems used in the North. External auditing of accounts by local offices of international accountant firms is considered normal practice in most international development assistance situations. In the future, one might wish that the Partner Programme allow for more flexibility in the structure of an IUC Programme to encourage and support the youngest departments ­ which are often in need of support the most ­ by means of incorporating a structured staff development plan for a department receiving support for academic capacity building. The Faculty of Science project appears to have been an attempt to do achieve this sort of support activity. Some consideration might therefore be given to allocating funds for this type of activity within an IUC Programme on a budget support basis rather than as a project. This is because it is often more difficult to apply quality, quantity and time indicators in a log frame analysis for capacity and resource building than it is to identify specific outputs from a defined piece of research work. The SidaSAREC model of university collaboration and funding of faculties and universities tends to favour individuals rather than institutions whereas the support of a combination of investments, service provision, staff training as well as research as provided by the VLIR-UOS model means that institutional capacity building is encouraged and supported in a balanced way through identification of those parts of the university which need and would benefit from the kind of support that collaboration with Flemish higher education establishments would be able to provide. The fact that there is a group of individuals on each of the participating campuses in the North and the South who act as coordinators means that there is an important personal focus for the Programme. However, programme coordination per se is unlikely to be as efficient with full-time academic members of staff as it could be with an appointed full-time `professional' manager with experience of university administration. It is understood that the use of professional managers in new VLIR-UOS Programmes has been a relatively good experience. In view of the notable successes of the SUA-VLIR Programme to produce real `stars' or `high points', like the Rodent Research activity in SPMC, the VLIR Secretariat should publicise the outputs of such shining lights using every possible means at their disposal. Since many of the scientists involved in these `high points' are good scientists, efficient communicators and highly respected academics in their own right, they should then be given every chance to act as reviewers and evaluators of other VLIR-UOS programmes based not only in their own region but also in other parts of the world. It could be envisaged that their involvement in such activities might easily act as catalysts for the development of further South-South collaborations. Their experiences would

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

also probably be much appreciated in provision of advice, mentorship and counselling for various members of projects even outside of their own discipline. In this regard it might be worth VLIR considering the involvement within each future evaluation commission a third member who is an academic who has been actively engaged in a previous IUC Programme. Alternatively, wherever possible the second member of an evaluation commission (the regional expert) could be this sort of person. It is the Evaluation Commission's firm hope that there might be a way in which one part of the research output of the SUA-VLIR Programme could be recognised internationally for its sustained contribution to scientific excellence and development relevance. A notable achievement of the SUA-VLIR Programme has been the high standard and sustained output of the Project 3 Rodent Research teams at SUA and the UA over the 10 years of the SUA-VLIR Programme at Morogoro. The standard of most of the research publications produced in refereed journals are of high class and as such the team (and the VLIR UOS Programme itself!) deserves some form of recognition for this sustained effort of high quality applied research. It is recommended that the VLIR Secretariat approach an appropriate learned society in Belgium (supporting either Natural History, Biological Science, or similar) to see what could be done to nominate the members of both the South and the North teams for a suitable award in recognition of their substantial contribution to international research on rodent taxonomy, biology, ecology and field control. For those universities now "graduating" from UOS programmes within a region, it might be time to support an East Africa/Southern Africa dialogue on how best to form meaningful academic development programmes as the next stage that would build upon the strong elements of the fully fledged VLIR-UOS Partnerships. The VLIR Secretariat could take a leading role in providing the platform (perhaps it could even be called the VLIR-Bridge Initiative?) for these interactions to progress into a further productive stage. This could be initially in the form of a workshop with clearly defined objectives to bring together key players (policy makers, senior university managers, researchers and teachers) who could highlight and focus on complimentary academic areas of mutual benefit. The Bridge programme could be a follow-on "graduate" initiative to the UOS Programme where a consortium of researchers based on at least three campuses would put forward a South-South-North university collaborative programme that will not only support mutually interesting research and teaching (especially in-service and possibly distance learning training) but also act as a conduit through which new generation of undergraduate and postgraduate courses could be developed in emerging thematic areas like global climate change, entrepreneurial land-based industries and food security. This could make many EA and SADC universities more competitive at attracting the best students from not only within but also from outside these regions. This might even help establish an "ivy league" of excellence in the natural resource management field in the two regions. Perhaps more could be made in the future of the personal linkages which develop between Flemish academics, that have led already to university development in the South. Many of the academics in the North who are involved in VLIR-UOS initiatives are an important resource (even those experienced academics over 65 years of age) and as such could be encouraged (with possibly some means of minimal support from VLIR) to act as mentors to younger members of staff in the universities of the

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

South (and not always necessarily for those directly involved in a UOS Partnership). The support could be easily delivered through email and other distance learning/ICT approaches. This would provide a sustainable means of support to the capacity of young scientists to manage teaching and research when they are again on their own (perhaps in some degree of intellectual isolation) in their university following a period of training overseas. Such initiatives could reduce brain drain scenarios which are still occurring in many countries that are facing economic pressures causing technical and academically trained staff to leave low paid university positions for better salaried positions in the commercial sector. The complex nature of a ten year south ­ north university collaboration like that of SUA-VLIR raises many observations and issues which the Evaluation Commission has tried to elaborate and to comment upon in its evaluation report. As evaluators, we would recommend that more should be a review made by the VLIR Secretariat of the existing KRA criteria for the Self Assessment. These need to take better account of broad categories of `projects', particularly those involving service provision and staff training. It could be envisaged that these types of projects might have a different format of Self Assessment to one used for a specialised research project. The evaluation structure is a good start in that it should eventually allow for statistical comparisons to be made of the impacts made by different VLIR-UOS initiatives in different parts of the world. But the assessment procedures still need adjustment and increased clarity. The latter could also avoid some of the misunderstandings by respondents about what kind or level of information input is required on the data formats. Perhaps a list of guidelines for filling in Self Assessment forms might allow for adequate levels of explanation to be made to take account of the variance in responses provided by different project teams at SUA. Variation in inputs to the questionaire Format 1 was problematic during the current evaluation. For instance only a few of the project teams produced a SWOT analysis for their part of the SUA-VLIR Programme. It also appears as though there was a great deal of repeated information in formats being used in the same evaluation exercise and it would be extremely useful if the different project teams could use a standard format for listing their scientific publications since there were many different formats produced even from within the same project team. In summary, the External Evaluation Commission congratulates the Belgian DGDC, VLIR and all of the SUA-VLIR-UOS stakeholders in showing a high degree of perseverance and mutual sense of compromise in overcoming the difficulties faced during the early stages of the SUA-VLIR UOS Partnership. A special mention should be again made of the untiring inputs made by the VLIR Secretariat and the members of the Programme's Coordination Units at SUA and UA for managing to oversee the successful completion of a full 10-year programme of South-North university collaboration, despite facing many challenges having to deal with all of its different actors representing so many contrasting individual needs and aspirations.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

1 4

Documents consulted

Jamhuri ya muungano wa tanzania (2001): nuFFic (2000): Pricewaterhouse coopers (2001): Soetens, e. (2000): Sua (1996): Sua (1999): Sua (2000): Sua (2001a): Sua (2001b): Sua (2001c): Sua (2001d):

Hotuba ya Waziri wa Sayansi, Teknolojia and Elimu ya Juu Wakati wa Kuwasilisha Bungeni Makadirio ya Matumizi ya Fedha kwa Mwaka 2001/2002. Evaluation of the NUFU programme ­ Final Report, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo June 2000 Final Audit Findings Report. External Audit of VLIR funded IUC Programme at Sokoine University of Agriculture 1997 ­ 2000. Dar es Salaam, October 2001. Mathematics Part 1: Algebra Report on The first Conference on Institutional University Cooperation with Counterpart Institutions, 16-24 September 1996, Brussels, Belgium. Faculty of Science: Profile of a New Born. Morogoro: SUA. Prospectus - The Official guide 2000/2001 Corporate Strategic Plan to the Year 2005 and Beyond. Faculty of Science Semester Curriculum for B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and Management, July 2001 Faculty of Science Position Paper for VLIR Review Mission Faculty of Science; Results for the June/July 2001 University Examinations for B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and Management and common courses for specific degree programmes in the Faculties of Agriculture and Nature Conservation and Veterinary Medicine. Work Plans for Implementation of Corporate Strategic Plan to the year 2005. Morogoro: SUA. First Annual Meeting of the PANTIL Programme 11th October, 2006 Education (Amendment) No. 10 of 1995. An Act to amend the Education Act, 1978, to establish the Higher Education Accreditation Council, to provide the procedure for accreditation and other related matters. The National Poverty Eradication Strategy. Dar-es-Salaam: Government Printer. The Tanzania Vision 2025. Dar-es-Salaam: Planning Commision. National Higher Education Policy. Dar-es-Salaam: Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. Some Basic Statistics on Higher Learning Institutions in Tanzania 1996/97 ­ 2000/2001. Dar-es-Salaam: Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. Annotated Budget Structure Preparatory meeting of the IUC evaluation commission of SUA, UDSM, UNZA and UMSS, Brussels, 25-27 June 2001. Section 4: Presentation of the VLIR and its programmes for university cooperation. VLIR Institutional University Cooperation Programme. Mid-term Evaluation. 64pp. VLIR Self-Assessment Report for the Peer Review of one specific component Evaluation methodology as developed by the four evaluation commissions on 25-27 June 2001 Report on VLIR-IFS-SUA Workshop on Scientific Proposal Writing The World Bank Country Study: Tanzania at the Turn of the Century: From reforms to Sustained Growth and Poverty Reduction: Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Sua (2001e) Sua (2006) gurt (1995)

gurt (1998a) gurt (1998b) gurt (1999) gurt (2001) vlir (1998): vlir (2001a):

vlir(2001b): vlir (2001c): vlir (2001d): vlir-iFS-Sua (2007) world bank (2001):

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

CONTENTS

ANNEXES

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex i : Schedule of interviews and related activities during in-country mission in tanzania

Date

monday 28/01/'08

Time (h)

08:00 ­ 08:30

Event

Mission preparation ­ discussion of the programme by the Eval. and Co-ord Discussion with Embassy staff

Place

New Africa Hotel, Dar es Salaam Embassy of Belgium

Person

P.W. Mtakwa, S. Mantell and O. Abagi.

09:00 ­ 09:30

Herman Boonen, Counsellor for International Cooperation Iver Jorgensen, Agricultural Development Officer JICA (IDO) contacted, but no discussion took place. Christian Kirstensson

09:45 ­ 10:30

Discussion with NORAD staff

NORAD Offices

10:45 ­ 11:30

Discussions with JICA

JICA Offices

11:45 ­ 12:30

Discussions with DANIDA

DANIDA Offices

12:45 ­ 13:45 14:00 ­ 14.45

LUNCH BREAK Ministry of Higher Education, Science & Technology Discussions with Programme Coordinator Dr P. Mtakwa

New Africa Hotel MHEST MHEST officials contacted, but not available for discussions.

15:00 ­ 17:30

USAID Offices New Africa Hotel

USAID contacted but no opportunity for discussion. General discussions on SUA-VLIR Programme Evaluators and Programme Coordinator.

tuesday 29/01/'08

06:00 ­ 10:00

Travel from Dar to Morogoro; Check in Hotel Oasis Working Lunch with SUA stakeholders

In transit, Morogoro

12:00 ­ 13:30

SUASA Club

Discussions with Coordination Office staff 14:00 ­ 14:30 14:30 ­ 16:45 17:00 ­ 17:30 Courtesy call to SUA Management Discussion with SNAL staff; Visit SNAL facilities both at MC and SMC Hotel Oasis VC's office SNAL Library Common Room, SMC Coordination office Outside SUA Main Gate SCSRD Meeting Room SUASA Club

Prof. R.H. Makundi- Rodent Research Prof. M. Kilasara - Soil & Water Mr. F.W. Dulle - SNAL Mr. H. George ( ICT Representative), Dr. Y. Muzanila (Faculty of Science), Dr. P.W. Mtakwa

Prof. G.C. Monela, Vice Chancellor ­ SAU. F.W. Dulle ­ Project leader.

Discuss the day's events with Co-ord. & Deputy Co-ord. wednesday 30/01/'08 08:30 ­ 09:30 09:45 -10:45 National Rodent Control Centre (NRCC) SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural Development (SCSRD) Discussion with ICT staff LUNCH BREAK

Dr. P. Mtakwa ­ Coordinator. Mrs. V. Ngowo, Officer-in-charge Prof. D. Rutatora - Director; Mr. Stephen Nindi- Head Resource Management. Dr. S. D. Tumbo ­ Director; W. R. Ballegu ­ Associates Director; Informal meeting with Food Science staff

11:00 ­ 13:00 13:00 ­ 14:00 wednesday 30/01/'08 14:00 ­ 15:00 15:00 ­ 16:00

African Seed Health Centre (ASHC) Directorate of Research and Post Graduate Studies (DRPGS) Discuss the day's & the next day's schedule

ASHC Meeting Room DRPGS Office

ASHC Coordinator contacted, but not available for discussion. Prof. J. A. Matovelo - Director

16:30 -17:30

Hotel Oasis

Evaluators & Coordinator

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

thursday 31/01/'08

08:30 ­ 10:30

Soil and Water Project (S&W) (Project 4)

Soil Science Library

Prof. Kilasara (Project leader); Prof. Tarimo, Prof. L.L. Lulandala, Prof. BM Msanya, Dr. D. Kimaro, Dr. P.W.Mtakwa Prof. Msaky (Head of Soil Sciences Department)

10:30 ­ 11:00

Visit to Head of Department Soil Science Pest Management Research (PMR) (Project 3) Pest Management Centre

14:30 ­ 16:30

Prof. R.H. Makundi ­ Project leader; team members: Prof. Kilonzo, Prof. Machangu, Dr. A. W. Masawe, Dr. Mulungu. Evaluators & Coordinator Bart Weetjens ­ Founder & Director; Prof. R. Machangu ­ SUA APOPO Coordinator, and Ms. Judith Karue. Dr P.W.Mtakwa Dr. Y.C. Muzanila ­ Dean, Dr. G.K. Karugila ­ Head Dept. of Biometry&Mathematics. Informal meeting with Agricultural Economics staff Evaluators and ALL stakeholders Evaluators Evaluators & Coordinator. Evaluators Evaluators, Flemish Project Leaders, VLIR-UOS team and DGDC representatives Evaluators Evaluators and Project Leaders SUA and Flemish team Evaluators

17:00 ­ 17:30 Friday 01/02/'08 08:00 ­ 10:00

Discuss the day's & the next day's schedule APOPO

Hotel Oasis APOPO Office, Mine Fields, Tuberculosis laboratory Coordination Office Dean's Office, FoS

10:10 ­ 10:30 11:00 ­ 13:00

Tea break Faculty of Science (FoS) (Project 5)

13.00 ­ 14.30 Saturday 02/02/'08 09:00 ­ 16:00 16:00 16:30 Sunday 03/02/'08 09:00 ­ 14:00 14:00 ­ 16:00 monday 04/02/'08 tuesday 05/02/'08 wednesday 06/02/'08 Whole Day 12:00 ­ 13:00

Lunch Draft report Writing Discuss the week's events and next day's schedule Draft report Writing Discussion with Flemish Project Leaders (FPLs) See Annex ii. Draft Report Writing Provide Feedback to Project Leaders (Local and Flemish) and Project Coordinators (Local and Flemish) External Evaluation Team leaves for Dar es Salaam en-route to Nairobi and Stockholm

SUASA Hotel Oasis Hotel Oasis Hotel Oasis Hotel Oasis Hotel Oasis ICE Conference Room, SUA. Hotel Oasis, Transit

09:00 ­ 12:00

noteS: norad = norwegian agency for international development; Jica = Japanese international cooperation agency; danida = danish international development agency; uSaid = united States agency for international development; aShc = african Seed health centre.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex ii : Participants at the discussions between evaluation commission and Flemish Project leaders on 03/02/08 at oasis hotel

Name

Paul Tobback Jean Poesen Anne Van Malderghem Laurent Martens Paul Nieuwenhuysen Herwig Leirs Josef ("Seppe") Deckers Luc D'Haese Dirk Callebaut Marie-Anne Fivez Kristien Verbrugghen Françoise De Cupere An Vermeesch Walter Decleir

Affiliation

Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) Department of Development Cooperation (Government of Belgium) University of Ghent (UG) Vrije Universiteit Brussel (retired) University of Antwerp (UA) Catholic University of Leuven (CUL) University of Antwerp (UA) University of Antwerp (retired) University of Antwerp (UA) VLIR-UOS Secretariat VLIR-UOS Secretariat University of Antwerp (UA) University of Antwerp (retired)

Role in VLIR-UOS

Project Leader: Food & Nutrition during Phase I Project Team Member, Soil & Water Project Follow-up VLIR programmes Team Leader Eco-agriculture and Agri-business project during Phase I Project Leader, SNAL project. Project Leader, Rodent Project Project Leader, Soil & Water Programme Coordinator in the North (2001 ­ present) Coordinator ) and Project Leader, Faculty of Science Project (1997 ­ 2001) ICOS University of Antwerp (UA) Previously Programme Officer IUC; Now Director, VLIR Programme Officer, IUC IUC Accountant, University of Antwerp Flemish Coordinator (2000 ­ 2001)

annex iii : nomenclature used within the vlir-uoS inter-university Partnership Programme

Activity programme (AP)

An activity programme gives an outline of the activities that are implemented within the framework of cooperation between the Flemish universities and a given partner university with regard to Institutional University Cooperation (IUC) for a given year, i.e. within the period of maximum twelve months. The activity programme is composed of activities carried out by the different partners. An "activity programme" as well as a "partner programme" is made up of projects. In the early VLIR-UOS Programmes, these were referred to as `projects' (as in the case of the SUA-VLIR Programme). In the framework of the activity programmes, VLIR-UOS was using a number of additional documents namely the `Synthesis of the activity programme' and the `Detailed activity programme'. From 2003 onwards, such documents have been replaced by internal monitoring systems to be applied by the various stakeholders involved in programme implementation.

Annual programme

In the framework of the IUC Programme VLIR-UOS submits for approval by the Belgian Director General for Development Cooperation, annual programmes. An annual programme is composed of the activity programmes with the different partner institutions in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Partner programme

A partner programme is composed of the successive activity programmes with a given partner university covering the entire period of cooperation (either a 5 or 10-year period depending upon the degree of synergy developing between the south-north partners).

Global programme

A global programme is composed of the different partner programmes with all partner institutions in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

annex iv : interview formats ­ types of questions asked

Origins and concepts of a UOS Programme with SUA and UDSM

Who were the key stakeholders involved in the origin and conceptualisation of the VLIR-UOS Programme? What roles did they play? What were the main driving approaches behind becoming involved in a VLIRUOS Programme? Who were the main people involved? What is it about the Programme that made it acceptable to stakeholders? Did the Programme face any resistance? If yes, where did the resistance come from? What was the rationale behind the resistance that you were aware of? How did the resistance manifest itself? How was it overcome? Who were the key supporters of the Programme? How did they sell it to SUA stakeholders, if indeed that was necessary? Can you recall how the policy decision to approve the Programme was made?

Focus on the development and implementation of the Programme at SUA

Please can you describe the development of the SUA-VLIR Programme ­ why did it develop in the way it did? What key factors most facilitated the development of the Programme at SUA? What factors were particularly important in the sensitisation and training for the Programme on SUA Campus? What are the specific successes of the Programme? What specific problems have you encountered? What do you think are the key lessons learned in terms of: firstly, the successes and strengths of the VLIR-UOS Programme in general (not SUA specifically)? And secondly, the weaknesses and failings of the UOS Programme, if any?

Programme sustainability

What measures are you taking as an institution to ensure sustainability of the outputs of the VLIR-UOS Programme at SUA? How and in what ways has the SUA-VLIR Programme influenced the rest of the University? What might SUA do to increase the levels of sustainability of activities initiated and developed during the 10 year SUA-VLIR Programme? What effects do you consider the SUA-VLIR Programme had on teaching and learning at SUA main and SM campuses? What effects has it had on gender equity in the institution? Do you have any other comments to make on the SUA-VLIR Programme?

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex v : Programme cycle and the level of responsibilities during the different programme phases of the vliruoS scheme

Phase Programming Activities Definition policy framework Broad outlines of partner/ programme types and guidelines for elaboration Elaboration of programme/ project idea Analysis whether idea is fundable and matching is feasible Analysis against VLIR-UOS policy Flemish interest based negotiations Collection of data, consultation, detailed formulation Actors VLIR-UOS/DGDC Outputs Typology of fundable projects Conditions for acceptance Preliminary proposals submitted to VLIR-UOS

identification

PARTNER UNIVERSITY

appraisal matchmaking

VLIR-UOS

Projects admitted for formulation Formalised matching Project proposals Funded programme Implementation as planned Adapted when necessary

Formulation Funding decision implementation and monitoring

PROJECT LEADERS VLIR-UOS

Annual planning Annual implementation Adaption as required Evaluation activities

ALL ACTORS BUT MAINLY PROJECT PARTNERS ALL PARTIES AND EXTERNAL ACTORS

evaluation (every 3 to 5 years)

Evaluation report Lessons learnt fed back to cycle

annex vi : Sua undergraduate enrolment by specialization and gender (1996/97-2005/06)

Academic Year 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 Male 700 796 872 1134 1372 1531 1733 1630 1712 1626 Female 232 (25%) 244 (24%) 249 (24%) 295 (21%) 458 (25%) 520 (25%) 513 (23%) 661 (29%) 734 (30%) 634 (28%) Total 932 1040 1051 1429 1830 2051 2246 2291 2446 2260

Source: SUA Facts and Figures, November 2005.

Currently SUA has a total of 305 academic staff. Out of these, 190 are Ph.D. holders, 99 have Masters degrees, and the remaining 16 have first degrees. The university has also 727 administrative staff. A total of 48 (16%) academic staff are female and 225 (33%) administrative staff are female (SUA, 2006). The numbers of female academic staff members vary across Faculties/Institutes. In 2005/2006, the percentage of female

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

members of academic staff in respective Faculties and Institutes at SUA was as follows (SUA, Nov. 2005): Faculty of Agriculture = 15% Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation = 7% Faculty of Veterinary Medicine = 4% Faculty of Science = 4% Development Studies Institute = 8% Institute of Continuing Education = 50% Sokoine National Agricultural Library = 33%

annex vii : Formulation of Sua-vlir Programme Phases i and ii

Stakeholders in the IUC Phase II Partner Programme were considered in two broad categories:

Northern Stakeholders which included: the Northern Project Leaders (and their Universities), the Co-ordinating University, i.e. University of Antwerp, the Flemish Coordinator, the IUC UA Administrator, the IUC UA financial manager (accountant) and VLIR. Southern Stakeholders in the South which included: the SUA Project Leaders, SUA top management, the Directorate of Research and Postgraduate Studies, the Bursar, Local Coordinator, SUA staff and students, Internet and Library users both within and outside SUA, Morogoro conservation groups, Government (representatives of both national and local), community based organisations (CBOs), non governmental organisations (NGOs) and farmers in and around the Uluguru Mountains.

Involvement of SUA-VLIR Stakeholders in the Formulation of the Phase II Partner Programme

Stakeholders at SUA discussed at project/departmental level and passed their ideas to their Northern counterparts who also discussed these. Objectives were then firmed up and agreed. In June 2002, a joint PCM Workshop was held at SUA. This workshop invited stakeholder participants from both the North and South. Southern stakeholders including potential Project Leaders (PLs), top SUA management, Directorate of Postgraduate Studies, Bursar's representative, representatives from the Regional Director of Agriculture and Livestock, a representative from a NGO and CBO undertaking conservation work in part of the Uluguru Mountains, to mention but a few. Procedure followed to come up with a New Partner Programme, Including a Justification of the Selection of the Phase II Projects and of the Non-selection of Phase I Projects, and A Justification of the Budget Distribution Over the Respective Phase II Projects Phase I of the IUC cooperation with SUA ended on 31 March 2003. The new Partner Programme commenced on 01 April 2003. To come up with the new Partner Programme, stakeholders at both SUA and Flanders were involved in its formulation. As early as December 2001 SUA started soliciting views from the Southern stakeholders so as to shape the structure of Phase II. SUA was guided by resolutions of the IUC Policy Meeting of May 2001. In that Policy Meeting it was stated among other things,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

that future cooperation has to be of mutual interest rather than just demand-driven. It also resolved that the projects would benefit if they were fewer than Phase I. On the matter of training, it was proposed that funding for training would be more limited in Phase II, unless it was specific training for the purpose of capacity building in the Project (training of SUA Staff ). Funding of curricula would also not be supported. It was further decided that Projects should refrain from investing on expensive items during Phase II of the IUC cooperation. Another guiding influence for the nature of Phase II was the output of the Mid-Term evaluation carried out in 2002. Recommendations put forward by the Evaluation Commission were given due concern. Between the months of December 2001 and May 2002, PLs at SUA and Flanders in consultation with other stakeholders deliberated on which Projects should continue and the contents of the future projects-taking into account the limitations. It was finally decided that two Projects, Food Science and Nutrition, and Agricultural Economics and Agri-business would not be selected for Phase II. There were three main reasons for this (1) These projects had scored low in the Evaluation; (2) they were mainly training-based (curriculum development and training of students) and (3) there was an apparent lack of interest in the two Projects. For example, communication between the PLs and their promoters was rather low key. This decision was endorsed by the Local Steering Committee at SUA as well as by the senior administration there. In June, 2002, this decision was also endorsed by the Joint Steering Committee Meeting comprising stakeholders from both Belgium and SUA. Problem trees, overall objectives and specific objectives for each project were arrived at during a joint PCM Workshop held at SUA in June 2002. The decision over the Budget Distribution for Phase II was made by Project Leaders at SUA. It was felt justifiable that the Faculty of Science get the largest share (23%) followed by the Coordination office (21%) while the remaining four Projects each were to receive 14% of the funds. The Faculty of Science would continue to receive more funds because of its needs. The Programme Coordination Office would continue to service all of the five projects. Hence it was felt by the Southern Stakeholders that it has to get a sizeable share too. For the AP 2004 the Programme Coordination Unit would receive >21% of the funds with Rodent Research and Soil and Water receiving much less than in Phase I, ie 14% of the total VLIR funding. It was unanimously agreed between the project leaders that the Programme should purchase a new pool Land Cruiser to help in research and other Programme activities. Since Rodent Research and Soil and Water Research Projects would be using those vehicles more than the other Projects, they agreed to contribute more toward the purchase of the vehicle. The relationship between the Partner Programmes for Phase II and the SUA Strategic Plan (inter-relatedness/dependency) was as follows:

Improved Research and Training Capacity

The overall academic objective of the SUA-VLIR Programme is Improved Research and Training Capacity at SUA. This is linked to Objectives 1 (Training), 2 (Academic Staff ) and 4 (Research).

Enhanced/Improved Institutional Capacity of SUA

The overall developmental objective is `Enhanced/Improved Institutional Capacity of SUA'. This objective is linked to the Objectives 8, 9 and 10 of the SUA Corporate Strategic Plan to the Year 2005 and beyond.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex viii : Final evaluation criteria used by the evaluation commission

Evaluation of Programme Outputs

All project leaders were requested to provide their own versions of the outputs of the Programme within the framework of the self-assessment reports (Format No 1) as defined against the key indicators as well as the assumptions formulated at project design stage (objectives in the case of Phase I and logical frameworks in the case of Phase II).

The logical framework

The logical framework served as the basic reference document in terms of the objectives and indicators specified to assess actual progress against the objectives and results formulated. A logical framework was not established as a planning tool at the beginning of Phase I of the VLIR-SUA partnership. It was only made a requirement by VLIR in 2002 when a policy for use of programmed consolidated management was introduced as standard in all future VLIR-UOS Interuniversity programmes. Accordingly, the objectives made at the start of Phase I are used as target criteria and the logical framework formulated at the beginning of Phase II as a structure upon which the Final Evaluation can be made. The evaluation focused on seven areas of key (programme/project) results areas (KRAs), each one specified in terms of its corresponding indicators (listed below). Where possible, both quantitative and full descriptive data were obtained and used as a basis for the evaluation: KRA 1: Research Articles in international peer reviewed journals; Articles in national peer reviewed journals; Conference proceedings (full paper); Conference abstracts; Chapters in books (based on peer review); Books with international distribution (author or editor); Working/technical papers/popularising literature/articles in national journals; electronic journals etc; Conference contributions (posters, lectures) ; Patents ; Other criteria where appropriate. KRA 2: Teaching Number of courses/training programmes developed; New of substantially updated curriculum; Textbook development; Learning packages developed (distance learning, CD-ROM etc.); Laboratory manuals; Excursion guides; other materials where appropriate. KRA 3: Extension and outreach Leaflets, flyers or posters for extension; Manuals or technical guides; Workshop or training modules packages; Audio visual extension materials; Consultancy / contract research; Policy advice/papers; Other materials where appropriate. KRA 4: Management New institutional procedures / policies; Lab or departmental management inputs; Systems development (e-management, software etc.); Research protocols; other outputs where appropriate KRA 5: Human resources development Training at various levels achieved, ie B.Sc.; M.Sc.; Ph.D.; Pre-doc; Training in Belgium; Other types of training. KRA 6: Infrastructure Management Physical infrastructure (incl. land); ICT-equipment; Library equipment (incl.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

books); Laboratory equipment; Transport KRA 7: Mobilisation of additional resources/opportunities Flemish travel grants; Flemish Ph.D.s; Other Ph.D.s; Spin-off projects; other resources developed

Evaluation Methodology Qualitative Evaluation Criteria ­ a description of quality, effectiveness, efficiency,

impact, development relevance and sustainability of each project activity and a quantitative assessment of these outputs.

Quality - this was the main criterion, being the result of all other criteria. Possible indicators of "quality" were: quality of research: the extent to which the results have been incorporated in local or international refereed journals quality of education: the extent to which alumni easily get a job which fits their education profile; the number of fellowships acquired from foundations quality of rendering services to society: the extent to which the university/ faculty/department is involved in feasibility studies/consultancies job opportunities created strategic vision Effectiveness - the extent to which the specific objectives have been achieved (the

level of the results)

Efficiency - the relationship between the objectives and the means used to reach the

objectives. The degree to which the installed capacity (human/physical/financial) is used; goals/means ratio in human, physical and financial resources. Possible indicators of "efficiency" at the level of the programme: the extent of flexibility in the programme implementation, e.g. reallocation of resources during implementation

Impact

Not just actual but also (given time limitations) potential impact (at level of goals), looking at consultancy, policy advise and accreditation models Possible indicators of "impact" were: impact at the level of the private sector: the amount of money earned on the market impact at policy level: the extent to which academics, involved in the IUC programme, are called upon by the government for policy advice impact at the level of the own university or other universities: renewed curriculum functions as example for other universities/departments the new style of teaching has become a model for teaching (e.g. the systematic use of teaching in combination with laboratory work)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Development relevance

The extent to which the programme/project addresses immediate and significant problems of the community, looking at the amount of self-finance, demand from state and private actors

Sustainability (especially financial and institutional sustainability)

Possible indicators of institutional commitment in the South were: co-funding by the partner university (matching funds) incorporation of costs into the budget of the partner university capacity to attract new funds retention of highly qualified staff the partner university sets aside funds for operations and maintenance of physical infrastructure Each project team was asked also to produce a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis as related to their project area and to indicate, where appropriate, Future Plans whereby the project activities might be continued, developed and strengthened in the future.

Possible indicators of mutual interest for the South and North stakeholders were as follows: did the Flemish universities commit their own university funds to the programme, for instance by giving fellowships or by allowing academics to go to the field? were Flemish academics personally committed (e.g. spend their holidays working in the partner university)? were there joint research projects which were interesting both to the Northern and Southern academics involved? did the partner universities also commit their own funds to the programme (matching funds)? was there a good quality follow-up plan for implementation after the 10 year period of partnership with earmarked funding? A five-point evaluation scale as shown below was used to assess the six qualitative descriptors of performance described above: 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= += (very) poor insufficient / low sufficient good / high excellent / very high results have been achieved but outside the scope of the Project's specific objectives

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex ix : outline log frame analyses of five projects conducted during Phase ii

The outlines of the log frame analyses of the five projects continued into Phase II are listed below as a basis for assessing the degree to which the original set objectives were achieved.

Project 1: ICT Overall Objectives:

Improved ICT use in teaching, research and administration at SUA in fields of Agriculture, Forestry, Veterinary, Wildlife etc. Verifiable indicators: In three years the number of mails accounts will increase by 50%; Performance of students in computing courses improved by year three of the project, Reduced usage of expensive communication systems (fax and telephone) at SUA; Computerised student record system established; accounting system, and timetabling will be effected by year two of Phase II; Sources of information: Mail Accounts; Examination results; University budgets; University reports

Specific Objectives:

The University benefits through mainstreaming ICT into operations of its missions. At the end of the project more students and staff become ICT knowledgeable and computers become tools for day-to-day operations at University; Verifiable indicators: Monitoring of ICT utilization and server statistics; Computer centre reports Assumptions and risks: Availability of human and material resources from government and donors

Intermediate Results:

1. Computer teaching and learning processes improved; 2. Efficient Internet access; 3. Better Intranet service Verifiable Indicators: Staff complete Masters and post graduate diploma in ICTbased courses at end of 2006; Internet delay reduced by 50%; LAN mostly run on the basis of 100 Mbps. Sources of information: Progress reports from supervisors and certificates obtained; Examination results reports; Switch ports in 100mbps Risks and Assumptions: Usage of computing facilities enhanced by provision of adequate human and material resources

Project 2: SNAL Overall objective:

The SNAL on SUA campus is recognised and consulted as a national centre of excellence in terms agricultural information services Specific objectives: Library computerised for efficient services to its users; library users benefit from improved services provided by better skilled staff; library users enjoy improved services on resulting research about information services; library users find information more efficiently Verifiable indicators: Integrated library management system and other ICT facilities in place and use; by end of year 4 of the project, two Ph.D. and five diploma studies will have been completed; by 2006 at research project completion, one Ph.D. dissertation will have been published and at least two articles published in international

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

journals; at the end of the project, user education programme is in place and at least 80% of library users use information resources effectively with minimal assistance from library staff. Sources of information: At least 70% of library users have access to library ICT and other facilities; integrated library management system and other ICT facilities in place and use; user study survey, statistics/library reports; reports and certificates where relevant. Risks and Assumptions: Availability of funds from the government and donor community; stable Internet connectivity at SUA; agricultural research institutions have Internet and E-mail access; the SUA management have willingness to incorporate literacy programmes in the university curriculum

Project 3: Rodent Research Overall objectives:

increased capacity for rodent research at SUA PMC; reduced harvest losses due to rodent damage in maize fields in Tanzania; reduced number of plague cases in Lushoto District Verifiable Indicators: over 5 years, SUAPMC can obtain at least one international research project in which UA is not involved; RCC issues outbreak warnings and acts accordingly; the number of admitted plague cases is reduced to less than ... per year Sources of information: SUAPMC reports, Rodent Control Centre reports, Ministry of Health reports

Specific objectives:

new scientists employed with a sound rodentology background; a set of models is developed that allows the Rodent Control Centre to predict rodent outbreaks and simulate control actions; recommendations for the prevention of plague transmission from the wild reservoirs to the peri-domestic fauna; recommendations for ecologically-based management of field rodent damage; rodent control specialists have the possibility to attend a regularly organised training course Verifiable indicators: a PC-model with appropriate user interface to simulate poison actions; a PC-model or graphical model to estimate outbreak probability; recommendations handed out to the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health extension staff; at least 5 rodent control specialists attend the training courses each year. Sources of information: SUAPMC reports Risks and Assumptions: the extension system and farmers are willing to adopt the recommendations; the RCC is willing to use the prediction models; the Ministry of Agriculture is willing to increase the level of quality at the RCC staff and follow RCC's recommendations proactively; there are no major changes in the ecology of the Lushoto District

Intermediate results:

Tanzanian Ph.D. and M.Sc. rodent scientists graduated, technical staff higher qualified, the academic staff has increased its experience; scientific knowledge gained on the effects of land use, cropping system and habitat structure on the biology and population dynamics of field rodents 3. scientific knowledge gained about the relations Verifiable indicators: 1. Two Ph.D., 1 M.Sc. and one diploma degree are obtained; scientists have actively participated in at least three international conferences. Book published. 2. Two refereed international publications by Year 4 3. One refereed international publication by Year 4 Information Sources: SUAPMC reports

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Risks and Assumptions: SUAPMC receives core funding from SUA to employ (some of ) the newly trained scientists; the research shows that there is a sufficient amount of deterministic processes in the biology of the rats to allow prediction; RCC remains interested to jointly organise the courses

Project 4: Soil and Water Project General objectives:

The research and teaching capacity at SUA in terms of mountainous land husbandry, forest and water resources management enhanced; Verifiable indicators: Farmers'field training school on mountainous land husbandry, forest and water resources management initiated at Towero (on the northern slopes of the Uluguru Mountains). Specific objective: Improved household income and the farmers' capacity to conserve natural resources through sustainable land husbandry, appropriate forest and water resources management on the Northern slopes of the Uluguru Mountains realized. Verifiable indicators: A site for long-term research and training and demonstration unit (RTDU) dealing with land, water and forest resources management in mountainous zones established and operational; Farmer-operated demonstration plots on appropriate soil, water and forest resources in place; Improved techniques for soil fertility restoration, land husbandry, soil water and forest resources; conservation adopted by at least 30% of the targeted farmers; Annual vegetable production by the farmers who will adopt the improved techniques increase by at least 50%. Information sources: Project semi- and annual reports; Project evaluation report; Project annual and evaluation reports; Project annual and evaluation reports. Risks and Assumptions: Funding according to the accepted budget flows without interruption; Farmers will continue to cooperate with the project; Farmers will be persuaded to adopt improved agricultural technologies; Vegetable market remains lucrative

Project 5: Faculty of Science Overall objective:

Strengthened capacity of Faculty of Science to effectively discharge its role in training research and advisory services Verifiable Indicators: Laboratory space capacity and equipment increased by 25% of 2003 capacity; FoS involved in at least two research activities also institutions, firms, and government departments receiving advice from FoS; Sources of information: Number of students supported by the laboratories; number of Faculty staff involved in the research activities Risks and Assumptions: Government continues to support public universities

Specific objectives:

Students enjoy high quality training offered by the Faculty of Science Verifiable indicators: Student space and practical participation in laboratory improved by 25% At least 20% improvement in pass rate by April 2006 compared to 2003 Information sources: Annual Report of the Faculty Intermediate results:1. Practical skills of students improved; 2. Sufficient and qualified staff members available; 3.Research capacity in selected areas developed; 4.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

An M.Sc. curriculum developed; 5. Training and research equipments fully functioning and used by students and researchers Verifiable indicators: At least 20 % improvement in students' practical pass rate by April 2006; the faculty not dependent on part-time lecturers for teaching; only staff members trained at postgraduate level involved in teaching activities by April 2006; at least three published papers by April 2006; At least one workshop organised (SouthSouth) by April 2006; Curriculum approved by the university council by April 2006; Participation of students in laboratory practicals; Equipments used for research and consultancy activities Information sources: Student examination results; Academic qualifications attained Staff retained; Publication in journals and research reports + workshop reports; Quality of students' practical reports and practical tests results; Faculty reports Risks and Assumptions: Qualified students are admitted; Transport to practical sites available and involved in teaching activities; Trained staff available

annex x. outputs from the Sua Projects

Project 1: ICT KR A 1: Research

Lwoga, E.T. and Sanga, C., Sustainability of donor funded ICT Projects in Higher Learning Education ­ case study of SUA, International Conference on Interdisciplinary Research, p 27, 11th ­ 12th August 2005, University of Zambia (UNZA) under VLIR-UNZA IUC Programme ­ Lusaka, Zambia Sanga, C. and Lwoga, E.T., Using Free and Open Source Software for E-Learning System (FOSES) in Tanzania, ECEL 2005: THE 4th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON e-LEARNING, 10th - 11th November 2005, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Not published in proceedings due to financial constraint but later was sent to another conference) Sife, A.S., Sanga, C. and Lwoga, E.T., New Technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for Higher Learning Institutions in Developing Countries, Tanzania Society of Agricultural Engineers, TSAE, November 2005, SUA, Morogoro,Tanzania Sanga, C., Tandi, E.T., Kazwala, R.R. and Mganilwa, Z. M., Using Free and Open Source Software for E-Learning System (FOSES) in Tanzania, The I International Conference" VIRTUALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION " as part of "5th International Convention "UNIVERSITY 2006", 13 - 17 February 2006, City of Havana, Cuba. URL: http://www.universidad2006.cu/ English/Taller12.asp Sanga, C., Lwoga, E.T. and Venter, I.M., "Open Courseware as a Tool for Teaching and Learning in Africa," tedc, pp. 55-56, Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Technology for Education in Developing Countries (TEDC'06), 2006. DOI: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TEDC.2006.23 or http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/proceedings/&toc=comp/ proceedings/tedc/2006/2633/00/2633toc.xml

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

KR A 2: Teaching

Developed 16 short courses in ICT currently being to students, staff and surrounding community Developed and expect to launch in 2009 postgraduate programme in Agricultural Information and Communication Management Updated two (2) undergraduate courses and developed two (2) new ones Accreditation by Tanzania Commission for Universities Staff trained on e-learning and e-learning packages

KR A 3: Extension and outreach

Installed discussion board with sections to cater for general and special topics Started user groups for academic staff and SUA community to facilitate communication Distributed information by email on the future of Internet Connectivity in East African countries ­ from VSAT to marine cable Produced an article for Alumni Newsletter on the importance of bandwidth optimization Share strategic information on campus for University Board and Senate Meetings

KR A 4: Management

Developed capacity in the development of Management Information System Developing Postgraduate, Undergraduate and Alumni Course Management System Developed Business Plan for short courses and other services in and outside SUA community SUA management has started to pay full Internet Fees The Computer Center is management its own mail system with 702 email accounts of academic and administrative staff

KR A 5: Human Resources Development

Two M.Sc. by VLIR for academic staff in UK ­ completed in 2006 One M.Sc. ­ partial support from VLIR ­ student completed in 2005 in India Four M.Sc. ­ for academic staff sponsored by Government of Tanzania, continuing at UDSM One Ph.D. ­ support from DAAD, continuing in South Africa Thirteen SUA staff attended short courses supported by VLIR on bandwidth management Two SUA staff attended short course on network management and were supported by SUA

KR A 6: Infrastructure Management

Increased number of computers, reduced computer to student ratio from 1:40 to 1:15 Added two computer laboratories with a total of 50 computers Purchased and installed a power back-up system for the server room Purchased and installed Intelligent switches running at gigabit level Purchased two new servers for mail management, web management and DHCP services

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

KR A 7: Mobilisation of additional resources/opportunities

Acquisition of 200 used computers from Close-the-Gap with support from VLIR Acquisition of Cisco network equipment Acquisition of 180 new personal computers Government of Tanzania support of four (4) M.Sc. in Computer Science for academic staff at UDSM NORAD support of new VSAT system DAAD support for Ph.D. studies for one academic staff Government of Tanzania & NORAD support for new fibre network for new buildings

Project 2: SNAL KR A 1: Research

Articles in international peer reviewed journals Nieuwenhuysen, P., De Smet, E. and Matovelo, D (2000) Cooperation between Belgian universities and the Sokoine National Library for Agriculture in Tanzania. In Information 2000: a vision for the SCECSAL region (Papers presented at the 14th Standing Conference of Eastern, Central and Southern African Librarians: SCECSAL 2000). Eds. Justin Chisenga, Agnes Chitambo, and Fred Onyango, publ. by the Namibian Information Workers Association, Windhoek, April 2000, 254 pages, pp. 115-123. Matovelo, D., Musya, JANGAWE, D.S., De Smet, E. (2006) Towards developing proactive information acquisition practices among smallholder farmers for empowerment and poverty reduction: a situation analysis. RUFORUM 2006 (ISSN: 1993-8462), 2006 Issue, pp. 213-224

KR A KR A KR A KR A

2: 3: 4: 5:

Teaching N/A Extension and Outreach N/A Management N/A Human Resources Development

M.Sc. (2 staff were trained and graduated at the University of Dar es Salaam) Ph.D. (1 staff was trained and is expected to graduate in November 2007 at the University of Dar es Salaam) Others - [Postgraduate diploma]- One staff was trained and graduated at the University of Dar es Salaam. - [Ordinary diploma] - Five and two staff were trained and graduated at the School of Library Archives and Documentation Studies and the Institute of ICT , respectively. - Library staff attended in-house training, short courses and conferences to update their professional skills.

KR A 6: Infrastructure Management

Libraries (the library was computerised) - 67 computers were purchased, manual catalogue was converted into electronic, loan system and is currently being converted from manual to an electronic system.

KR A 7: Mobilisation of Resources and Opportunities N/A

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Project 3: Rodent Research

Key result areas

kra 1: research kra 2. teaching kra 3: extension and outreach kra 4: management kra 5: human resources development

Explanation and/or justification

More articles in peer reviewed journals than anticipated (publications listed below) Staff involved in teaching more courses than earlier planned. A book manual for pest management was developed Staff involved in aadvising farmers on rodent pest management in various districts in Tanzania Not much involved in this type of activity Retention of staff achieved. Two Ph.D.'s (later recruited as permanent staff), three M.Sc.'s, one diploma, one trainee in Belgium, several Flemish students conducted their research in Tanzania based at PMC. All technical and scientific staff provided with computers, laboratories were also furnished with new equipment. Several Flemish travel grants, SUA became lead university in the EthioBelgo-Tanzania Research Project in Ethiopia, other project proposals submitted and approved, Flemish Ph.D. students at SUA and two Tanzanian Ph.D.s obtained None

kra 6: infrastructure management kra 7: mobilisation of additional resources/opportunities

kra other

SPMC Scientific Publication output during SUA-VLIR Programme Category 1. These are publications from works supported 100% by SUA-VLIR Programme or were partially funded by VLIR.

Makundi, R.H, Oguge, N.O. and Mwanjabe, P.S. (1999) Rodent Pest Management in East Africa ­ An Ecological Approach. Pp. 460 ­ 476. In: Singleton, G., Hinds, L. Leirs, H., and Zhang, Z. (ed). Ecologically-based Rodent Management Australian Center For International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia (ISSBN 1863202625), 494 p Carlo Fadda, Richard Castiglia, Paolo Colangelo, Marco Corti, Robert Machangu, Rhodes Makundi, Alessandra Scanzani, Protas Tesha, Walter Verheyen, and Ernesto Cappana (2001) The rodent fauna of Tanzania: a cytotaxonomic report from the Maasai Steppe. Rend Mat. Acc. Lincei.- Zoologia 12: 29-49. Makundi R.H. and Massawe, A.W. (2003). Recent advances in studies of the ecology of Mastomys natalensis (Smith, 1834) (Rodentia: Muridae) in Tanzania, East Africa. pp 242 ­ 245. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (eds). Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 3567. Mulungu, Loth S., Makundi, Rhodes H. and Leirs, Herwig. (2003). Robustness of techniques for estimating rat damage and yield loss in maize fields. pp 224 ­228. In: Singleton, G.R. Hinds, L.A., Krebs, C.J. and Spratt, D.M. (Eds.). Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management., Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 356 7. Massawe, A. W., Leirs, H., Rwamugira, W. P. & Makundi, R. H. (2003) Effect of land preparation methods on spatial distribution of rodents in crop fields. pp 229-232. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (Eds)., Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 356 7. Mulungu, L. S., Makundi, R. H., Leirs, H., Massawe, A. W., Vibe-Petersen,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

S. & Stenseth, N. C. (2003). The rodent-density-damage function in maize fields at an early growth stage. pp. 301 ­ 303. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (eds). Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 356 7. Machang'u, R.S. , G. Mgode, J. Assenga, G. Mhamphi, R. Hartskeerl, M. Goris, C. Cox, B. Weetjens and R. Verhagen. 2003 Characterization of Leptospira isolates from captive giant pouced rats, Cricetomys gambianus. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (Eds). Rats, Mice and People. Rodent Biology and Management Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. Ngowo, V., Lodal, J., Mulungu, L. S., Makundi, R. H., Massawe, A. W. & Leirs, H. (2003) Evaluation of thiram and cinnamamide as potential repellents against maize-seed depredation by the multimammate rat, Mastomys natalensis, in Tanzania. Pp 260 ­ 261. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (Eds). Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 356 7. Makundi, R.H., B.S. Kilonzo and A. W. Massawe (2003). Interaction between rodent species in agro-forestry habitats in the western Usambara Mountains, northeast Tanzania, and its potential for plague transmission to humans. Pp 20-24. In: G. R. Singleton, L. A. Hinds, C. J. Krebs & D. M. Spratt (Eds). Rats, Mice and People. Rodent Biology and Management. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 564 p. ISBN 186320 356 7. Castiglia, R., Corti, M., Colangelo, P., Annesi, F., Cataglia, E., Verheyen, W., Sichilima, A. and Makundi, R. (2003) Chromosomal and molecular characterization of Aethomys kaiseri from Zambia and Aethomys chrysophilus from Tanzania (Rodentia: Muridae). Hereditas 139: 81 ­ 89 Stenseth, N.C., Leirs, H., Skonhoft, A., Davis, S., Pech, R., Andresassen, H.P. Singleton, G., Lima, M., Machangu, R.M., Makundi, R.H., Zhang, Z., Brown, P., Shi, D. and Wan, X. (2003). Mice and Rats: dynamics and bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(7). 367 - 375 Machang'u, R.S., Mgode, G.F., Assenga, J., Mhamphi, G., Weetjens, B., Cox, C., Verhagen, R., Sondji, S., Goris, M.G., and Hartskeerl, R.A. (2004). Serological and Molecular characterization of Leptospira serovar Kenya from captive African giant pouched rats (Cricetomys gambianus) from Morogoro, Tanzania. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 41, 117-121 Colangelo Paolo, Corti Marco, Verheyen Erick, Flavia Annesi, Oguge Nicholas, Makundi Rhodes and Verheyen Walter. (2005). Mitochondrial phylogeny reveals differential modes of chromosomal evolution in the genus Tatera (Rodentia: Gerbellinae) in Africa. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 56: 556 - 568. Makundi, R.H., Massawe, A.W., Mulungu L.S. (2005). Rodent population fluctuations in three ecologically distinct locations in north-east, central and southwest Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology (Supplement): 135, 159-165 Makundi, R.H., Bekele, A., Leirs, H., Massawe, A.W., Rwamugira, W. and Mulungu, L.S. (2005). Farmer's perceptions of rodents as crop pests: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rodent pest management in Tanzania and Ethiopia. Belgian Journal of Zoology (Supplement) 135: 153-157. Corti, M., Castiglia, R., Colangelo, P., Capanna, E., Beolchini, F., Bekele,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

A., Oguge, N., Makundi, R.H., Sichilima, A., and Leirs, H. (2005). Cytogenetics of rodent species from Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Belgian Journal of Zoology (Supplement). 135:197-216. Massawe, A.W., Rwamugira, W., Leirs, H., Makundi, R.H. and Mulungu, L.S. (2005). Influence of land preparation methods and vegetation cover on population abundance of Mastomys natalensis in Morogoro, Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology (Supplement) 135: 187-190. Mulungu, L.S., Makundi, R.H., Leirs, H., Massawe, A.W., Machang'u, R.S. and Ngowo, V. ( 2005). Spatial patterns and distribution of rodent damage in maize fields in Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement): 183- 185. Ngowo, V., Mulungu, L.S., Lodal, J., Makundi, R.H., Leirs, H., and Massawe, A.W. (2005). Evaluation of thiram and cinnamamide for protection of seeds against multimammate rats, Mastomys natalensis, in maize fields in Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement): 179 ­ 181. Odhiambo, R. Makundi, R.H., Leirs, H. and Verhagen, R. (2005). Community structure and seasonal abundance of rodents of maize farms in south-western Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement): 113-118. Kisingo, Alex W., Christopher A. Sabuni, Lisette Coiffait, Becca Hayhow and Britt Larsen. (2005). Effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity of small mammals in Lulanda Forest in Mufindi, Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement): 109-112. Kilonzo, Bukheti, Julius Mhina, Christopher Sabuni and Georgies Mgode. (2005). The role of rodents and small carnivores in plague endemicity in Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement),: 119-125 Swai, E.S., Schoonman, L. and Machang'u R.S. (2005). Prevalence and factors associated with bovine leptospirosis in small scale dairy farms in Tanga region, Tanzania. Bull. Anim. Hlth. Prod. Afr. 53, 51-59. Mgode, G.F., G. Mhamphi, A. Katakweba, E. Paemelaere, N. Willekens, H. Leirs, R.S. Machang'u and R.A. Hartskeerl. (2005). PCR detection of Leptospira DNA in rodents and insectivores from Tanzania Belgian Journal of Zoology 135 (Supplement): 17-19 Skonhoft, A., H. Leirs, H.P. Andreassen, L.S.A. Mulungu and N.C. Stenseth 2006. The bioeconomics of controlling an African rodent pest species. Environmental and Development Economics 11; 1-23. Machang'u, R.S., G. Mgode and D. Mpanduji 1997. Leptospirosis in animals and humans in selected areas of Tanzania. Belgian Journal of Zoology 127 (Supplement 1): 97-104. Davis, S., Makundi, R.H. Machangu, R.S. and Leirs, H. 2006. Demographic and spatio-temporal variation in human plague at a persistent focus in Tanzania. Acta Tropica 100: 133-1411. Makundi, R.H., Massawe, A.W., and Mulungu, L.S. 2006. Breeding seasonality and population dynamics of three rodent species in the Magamba Forest Reserve in the Western Usambara Mountains, north-east Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44: 1-6 Castiglia, R., Bekele, A., Makundi, R.H., Oguge, N., Corti, M. 2006. Chromosomal diversity in the genus Arvicanthis from the Horn and East Africa. A taxonomical and phylogenetic evaluation. Journal of Zoological Systematics 44 (3): 223 - 235. Massawe, A.W., Rwamugira, W., Leirs, H., Makundi, R.H. and Mulungu, L.S.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

2006. Do farming practices influence population dynamics of rodents? A case study of the multi-mammate field rats, Mastomys natalensis, in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 45: 293-301. Aude Lalis, Emilie Lecompte, Raphaël Cornette, Sybille Moulin, Robert S. Machangu, Rhodes Makundi, Vladimir M. Aniskine, Christiane Denys 2006. Polymorphism of the age population structure of two wild Mastomys natalensis (Rodentia: Muridae) Tanzanian habitat samples: a multicriteria comparison. Mammalia 70(3/4): 293-299. Mgode, G.F., Machangu, R.S., M.G. Goris, M. Engelbert, S. Sondij and R.A. Hartskeerl 2006. New Leptospira serovar Sokoine of serogroup Icterohaemorrhagie from cattle in Tanzania. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 56: 593-597. Riccardo Castiglia, Rhodes Makundi and Marco Corti. 2007. The origin of unusual sex chromosome constitution in Acomys sp. (Rodentia: Muridae) from Tanzania. Genetica 131(2): 201-207. Anne LAUDISOIT, Herwig LEIRS, Rhodes H. MAKUNDI, Stefan Van Dongen, Stephen Davis, Simon Neerinckx, Jozef Deckers and Roland LIBOIS 2007. Plague and the human flea, Tanzania. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13(5):687-693. Massawe A.W., Mrosso, F. P., Makundi R.H. and L.S. Mulungu. 2007. Breeding patterns of Arvicanthis neumanni in central Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology (IN PRESS). Mulungu, Loth S., Rhodes H. Makundi, Apia W. Massawe and Herwig, Leirs. 2007. Relationship between sampling intensity and precision for estimating damage to maize caused by rodents. Integrative Zoology 2: 131-135. Makundi, R.H., Massawe, A.W., Mulungu, L.S. 2007. Reproduction and population dynamics of Mastomys natalensis in agricultural landscape in the western Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Integrative Zoology 2(4): 233-238. Sluydts, V., L. Crespin, S. Davis, M. Lima and H. Leirs. 2007. Survival and maturation rates of the African rodent, Mastomys natalensis: density-dependence and rainfall. Integrative Zoology 2: 220-232.

Category 2: Publications which are a spinoff of the SUA-VLIR Programme support due to the condusive environment for research that was created. Many are from postgraduate students that were based at the SUA Pest Management Centre and supervised by staff of the Centre

Mwatawala, M.W., M. De Meyer, R.H. Makundi and A.P. Maerere 2006. Biodiversity of fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) at orchards in different agroecological zones of the Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Fruits 61 (5) 1 ­ 22. Mwatawala, M.W., M. De Meyer, R.H. Makundi and A.P. Maerere 2006. Seasonality and host utilization of the invasive fruit fly, Bactocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Central Tanzania. Journal of Applied Entomology. 130 (9-10): 530-537. Mgoo, V.H., R.H. Makundi, B. Pallangyo, F. Schulthess, N. Jiang and C.O. Omwega 2006. Yield loss due to the stem borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Cerambidae) at different nitrogen application rates to maize. Annales Soceiete Entomologique de France 42(3-4): 487-494. Sariah, J.E. and Makundi, R.H. 2007. Effect of time sowing of beans (Phaseolus

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

vulgaris L.) on infestation by two species of the Bean Stem Maggot, Ophiomyia spencerella and Ophiomyia phaseoli (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 40(1): 45 ­51. Banwo,O.O., Makundi, R.H., Abdallah, R.S and Mbapila, J.C. (2001) Identification of vectors of rice yellow virus in Tanzania. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 33 (5): 395 ­ 403 Banwo,O.O., Makundi, R.H., Abdallah, R.S and Mbapila, J.C. (2001) First report of Dactylispa lenta Weise (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) as a vector of rice yellow mottle virus. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 36 (1-2): 189 - 192. Banwo, O.O., Makundi, R.H., Abdallah, R.S. and Mpapila, J.C. (2001) A new species of Chetocnema: vector of rice yellow mottle virus in Tanzania. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Sciences Vol 29 (1): 61-65. Banwo, O.O., Makundi, R.H., Abdallah, R.S and Mbapila, J.C. (2001) Bionomics of vectors and dynamics of rice yellow mottle virus in Tanzania. International Rice Research Notes.26 (2): 41-42. Banwo,O.O., Makundi, R.H., Abdallah, R.S., Mbapila, J.C. and Kimmins, F.M. (2002) Bionomics of vectors and the importance of two species of Chaetocnema in the transmission of rice yellow mottle virus in lowland rice in Tanzania. Phytoparasitica 30(1): 96-104. Kashenge, Sophia, S. and Rhodes H. Makundi (2001) Comparative efficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica) formulations and Amitaz (Mitac) against the two spotted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) on tomatoes: mortality, repellence, feeding deterrence and effects on predatory mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. Vol 34: pp 265-273. Makundi, R.H and Sophia Kashenge (2002) Comparative efficacy of neem, Azadirachta indica, extract formulations and the synthetic acaricide, Amitraz (Mitac), against the two spotted spider mites, Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae), on tomatoes, Lycopersicum esculentum. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 10 (1): 57-63. Banwo, O.O., R.H. Makundi and Abdallah, R. (2002) Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (RYMV): Incidence and abundance of vectors in sequentially cropped lowland rice in Tanzania. Arch. Phytopath. Planz. Vol. 33: 171-180. Banwo, O.O., R.H. Makundi and Abdallah, R. (2002) Vector bionomics of two species of Chaetocnema (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in rice yellow virus transmission in lowland rice in Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 20(4): 95-104. Banwo, O.O., Winter, S., Koerbbler, M., Abdallah, R.S. and Makundi, R.H. (2004) Molecular variability and distribution of rice yellow mottle virus in Tanzania. Acta Virologica 48: 69-71. Makundi, R.H. and Sariah, J.E. (2005). A functional response of braconid parasitoids of the bean stem maggot, Ophiomyia spencerella (Diptera, Agromyzidae), in beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Tanzania. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 112(5), 478-484 Mwatawala, M., M De Meyer, I.M. White, Maerere, A. and R.H. Makundi 2007. Detection of the solanum fruit fly, Bactrocera latifrons (Hende) in Tanzania (Diptera, Tephritidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 131(7): 501-503.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Category 3: Accepted manuscripts/submitted manuscripts

Accepted Papers Lies Durnez, Miriam Eddyani, Georgies F Mgode, Abdul Katakweba, Charles R Katholi, Robert R Machangu, Rudovick R Kazwala Francoise Portaels, Herwig Leirs (2007). First findings of mycobacteria in African rodents and insectivores using stratified pool screening. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007 (in press). Makundi, Rhodes H. Apia W. Massawe, Loth S. Mulungu, Abdul Katakweba, Thomas J. Mbise and Georgies Mgode. Potential mammalian reservoirs in a bubonic plague outbreak focus in Mbulu District, northern Tanzania, in 2007. Mammalia (accepted Dec. 2007) Massawe, A.W., W. Rwamugira, H. Leirs, R.H. Makundi and Loth S. Mulungu. Soil type may limit population abundance of rodents in crop fields: case study of Mastomys natalensis in Tanzania. Integrative Zoology. (accepted September 2007). Lias, A., Baylac, M., Cosson, J.F., Lecompte, E., Makundi, R.H., Machangu, R.S. and Denys, C. Cranial morphometric and fine scale genetic variability of two Mastomys natalensis (Rodentia: Muridae) populations: A local adaptation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology (accepted October 2007). Mulungu, L.S., Makundi R.H., Massawe A.W., Machangu.R.S. and Mbije, E.N. Diversity and distribution of rodent and shrew species associated with variations in altitude on Mt Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Mammalia (accepted January 2008) Massawe A.W., Mrosso, F. P., Makundi R.H., and L.S. Mulungu. Breeding patterns of Arvicanthis neumanni in central Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology (2007) (accepted: in press).

Submitted manuscripts Makundi, Rhodes H., Apia W. Massawe, Loth S. Mulungu, and Abdul Katakweba. Diversity and population dynamics of rodents in farm-fallow mosaic fields in Central Tanzania. Mammalia (revised and re-submitted). Georgies F. Mgode, Robert S. Machang'u, Margarida Collares-Pereira, Maria L.J. Vieira, Marga M. Goris, Mirjam Engelbert, and Rudy A. Hartskeerl. Pathogenic differentiation of Leptospira isolates from Portuguese mammalian hosts by a polyvalent approach International Journal of Medical Microbiology. Georgies Frank Mgode Traditional conservation of mole rat species (Rodentia) in Hanang Tanzania: broadening the approaches for nature conservation. Oryx, International Journal of Conservation. Georgies F. Mgode, Armanda D.S. Bastos and Christian T. Chimimba. A morphometric and classical qualitative morphological analysis of the taxonomic status of Acomys (Rodentia: Muridae) from northern Tanzania, East Africa. Journal Zoomorphology. Makundi, R.H., A. Katakweba, A.W Massawe, Thulllier, P., C.D. Mwalimu, G. Mgode and G. Mchau Field evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test using dipstick assay for retrospective confirmation of plague infectiom in humans in Mbulu District, Tanzania. East African Journal of Medical Research (Submitted December 2007). Books Makundi, R.H. (Ed). 2006. Management of Selected Crop Pests in Tanzania. Tanzania Publishing House Ltd., Dar es Salaam, 487 p.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Theses/Dissertations of students Category 1: FUNDED BY THE VLIR PROGRAMME Doctor of Philosophy Mulungu, Loth S. Title of Ph.D. thesis: Assessment of maize (Zea mays L.) damage and yield loss due to the multi-mammate rats, Mastomys natalensis (Smith, 1834) in the field. (Supervisors: Prof R.H. Makundi and Prof Herwig Leirs). (Sokoine University of Agriculture) Apia W. Massawe ­ Ph.D. thesis title: Effect of cropping systems and land management practices on rodent population characteristics. Supervisors: (Prof Herwig Leirs and Dr Winnie Rwamugira). (Sokoine University of Agriculture) Master of Science Tesha Protas ­ (2001) Title of dissertation: Multidisciplinary evaluation of the un-stripped grass rat Arvicanthis spp (Supervisors: Dr Carlo Fadda and Prof. R.S. Mcchang'u) (Sokoine University of Agriculture) Pax Jesse ­ (2003)Title of dissertation: Role of rodents as reservoirs of the East African tick-borne relapsing fever agent B. duttoni (Supervisor: Prof. R.S. Mcchang'u) (Sokoine University of Agriculture) Mgode Georgies Frank (2006). Title of Dissertation: Application of multidisciplinary approach to the systematics of Acomys (Rodentia: Muridae) from northern Tanzania. (Supervisors: Prof. C Chimimba and Dr A.D. S. Bastos). (University of Pretoria, South Africa). Category 2: NOT FUNDED BY THE SUA-VLIR PROGRAMME, BUT USED AND BENEFITED FROM EQUIPMENT AND OTHER FACILITIES MADE AVAILABLE BY THE PROGRAMME (ALSO SUPERVISED BY STAFF OF THE SPMC) Doctor of Philosophy Banwo, O. O. (2002). Title of thesis: Vector identification, bionomics and molecular characterization of rice yellow mottle virus in Tanzania. (Supervisers: Prof R.H. Makundi and Dr R. Abdallah) Odhiambo, Richard O. (2005). Title of Ph.D. thesis: Community structure and diet preference of rodent pests of staple crop in Eastern Africa. (Supervisors: Prof R.H. Makundi and Prof Ron Verhagen). Abiola Raj ­ (2005). Title of Thesis: Characterization of E. coli 0157: H7 isolated from humans and animals in Tanzania (Supervisor: Prof. R.S. Machang'u). Mwatawala M. (2007). Title of Thesis: Bionomics, population dynamics and host range of fruit flies in Morogoro, Tanzania (Supervisors: Prof. R.H. Makundi, Prof A. Merere and Dr M. De Meyer). Master of Science MWATAWALA Maulid (1998): Title of dissertation: Development of a computer data base for integrated pest management in selected crops for use in Tanzania (Supervisor: Dr R.H. Makundi) NG'HOMA Nyabilisi Maliyatabu (1999): Title of Dissertation: Effectiveness of four botanical extracts for control of American Bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) (Hubner) and cotton aphids (Aphis gossypii) (Glover) on cotton in Mwanza region. (Supervisor: Dr R.H. Makundi) KASHENGE Sophia S. (2001) - Title dissertation: Comparative Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Amitraz (Mitac) against the two spotted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) on tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum) (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi).

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

KAMWELA Shaban Daniel: (2001). Title of dissertation: Response of the Larger Grain Borer (Prostephanus truncatus) (Horn) to varietal resistance variation of maize. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi). MWAMBENE Pius ­ (2002). Title of dissertation: Study and determination of behaviour of Cricetomys spp (Supervisor: Prof. R.S. Machang'u). ASSENGA Justine - (2002).Title of dissertation: Habitat use and activity patterns of Cricetomys spp (Supervisor: Prof. R.S. Machang'u). MALULU Jesse (2002) - Title of dissertation: Association of Leptospirosis with the consumption of traditional brew in the Seychelles (Supervisor: Prof. R.S. Machang'u). MWINYI, Waziri Ali. (2002). Title of dissertation: Control of cashew sucking bugs, Helopeltis anacardii and Pseudotheraptus wayi by manipulation of the African weaver ants (Oecophylla longinoda) populations in cashew nut trees. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi) HAULE, John Bosco (2003): Title of dissertation: The effect of extracts of neem seed on survival and infestation of Thrips tabaci on onions. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi) SARIAH, John Elias (2003): Title of dissertation: Studies on influence of sowing time of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) on level of infestation and parasitism of the bean stem maggot. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi) SHEMDOE, Riziki Silas (2003). Title of Dissertation: Ecosystem management practices and human plague problems in west Usambaras, Tanzania: a socialeconomic analysis (Supevisors: Prof. Okitin'gati and Prof. B.S. Kilonzo) MROSSO, Furaha Philemon (2004). Title of dissertation: Reproduction and breeding patterns of Arvicanthis neumanni in central Tanzania. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi) MGOO, Victor (2005). Title of dissertation: Maize yield losses attributed to the Stem Borer Chilo partelus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Cerambidae) in Eastern agroecological zone of Tanzania. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi) NASSORO Abdulla (2007) Title of Dissertation: Species and distribution of egg parasitoids of maize stem borers in Morogoro and Coast regions in Tanzania. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi). SABUNI Christopher S. (2007). Title of Dissertation: Species composition and diversity of small mammals in the Saadani National Park, Tanzania. (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi and Prof Munishi).

Category 3: On-going M.Sc. and Ph.D. Students Fivawo Bernadette: Title: Efficacy of some botanical insecticides against common bean bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus Boh and Acanthoscelides obtectus Say) Magina, F. Title: Spatial distribution and temporal abundance variation of three important insect pests of coffee in Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania Mziray, Henry, A. Title: Incidence, host utilization and seasonality of solanum fruit fly, Bactocera latifrons (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Morogoro, Tanzania. Muhidin Mabula Title: Host range and population dynamics of cotton strainers, Dysdercus spp. in Kilosa District, Tanzania. Swila Ntuli. Title: Dynamics of infestation of maize by the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus and maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais in single and mixed populations (Supervisor: Prof. R.H. Makundi). Mbilinyi, Lawi, B. Title of Research Project: Population dynamics of sweet potato weevils (Clays spp.) in the Morogoro agro-ecological zone of Tanzania.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

SHORT TRAINING OF STAFF AT THE SPMC SUPPORTED BY THE SUA-VLIR PROGRAMME

Degree and Diploma A.W. Massawe ­ Ph.D. (2003) L.S. Mulungu - Ph.D. (2003) Protas Tesha ­ M.Sc. (2001) Jesse Pax ­ M.Sc. (2003) Georgies Mgode ­ M.Sc. (2007) G. Mhamphi - Diploma (2006)

SHORT TR AINING

A.W. Massawe ­ Short training at the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Lyngby, Denmark. ­ February 1999. Course: Rodent Population Dynamics L.S. Mulungu ­ Short Training at the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Lyngby, Denmark. - 18th January to 7th March 2000. Course: Modeling, Data Processing and Analysis A.W. Massawe: Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium: January ­ April 2002. Training in Data Processing and Analysis L.S. Mulungu: Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium: January ­ April 2002. Training in Data Processing and Analysis Christopher Sabuni ­ Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium ­ 2005. Course: Individual and Institutional Capacity Building Training in taxonomy and specimen Collection Management.

Visiting research fellow Prof. R.H. Makundi was a visiting research fellow in the Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium for 5 weeks (March/April 2004). Purpose of visit: Analysis of Plague data from Lushoto District and Manuscript preparation. (later published in Acta Tropica in 2006): Funded by SUA-VLIR Programme.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ATTENDED AND FUNDED BY HE SUA-VLIR PROGR AMME

PROF R.S. MACHANG'U Second International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management ­ Canberra, Australia, February, 2003. 9th International Symposium on African Small Mammals ­ Morogoro, Tanzania, July 2003.

PROF. R.H. MAKUNDI 1st International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Beijing, China, 5-9th October 1998. 8th International Symposium on African Small Mammals ­ Paris, France, July 2000. 8th International Theriological Congress, Sun City, South Africa ­ 12 ­17th August 2001 2nd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Canberra, Australia, 10-14 February 2003. 9th International Symposium on African Small Mammals ­ Morogoro, Tanzania, July 2003.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

19th International Congress of Zoology, Beijing, China, 23 ­ 27 August 2004. International Conference on Plague Prevention and Control, Oslo Norway, 8th ­12th November 2005. 9th International Mamma logical Congress, Sapporo, Japan. 31st July ­ 5th August 2005. 3rd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Hanoi, Vietnam, August 2006.

DR. A.W. MASSAWE Second International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Canberra, Australia, 10-14 February 2003. 9th International Symposium on African Small Mammals ­ Morogoro, Tanzania, July 2003. The 19th International Congress of Zoology, Beijing, China. 23 ­ 27 August 2004. 9th International Mammalogical Congress, Sapporo, Japan. 31st July ­ 5th August 2005. 3rd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Hanoi, Vietnam, August 2006.

DR. L.S. MULUNGU Second International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Canberra, Australia, 10-14 February 2003. 9th International Symposium on African Small Mammals ­ Morogoro, Tanzania, July 2003. 9th International Mamma logical Congress, Sapporo, Japan. 31st July ­ 5th August 2005. 3rd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Hanoi, Vietnam, August 2006.

SPECIAL AWARDS: SPMC Dr. A. W. Massawe; Awarded a certificate for outstanding poster presentation and scientific work at the 19th International Congress of Zoology, Beijing, China. 23 ­ 27 August 2004: Title: Do farming practices influence population dynamics of rodents? A case study of the multimammate field rats, Mastomys natalensis, in Tanzania. Dr. L.S. Mulungu: Awarded a book titled "Key Topics in Conservation Biology (Edited by David Macdonald and Katrina Service) for Best Student Poster in the 3rd International Conference on Rodent Biology and Management, Hanoi, Vietnam, August 2006. Prof. R.H. Makundi: Awarded a certificate for great efforts in research in Zoology and best presentation in Ecology by the International Society of Zoological Sciences in Beijing, China on 11th December 2007. Title of Presentation: Rodent species diversity and abundance in modified landscapes: consequences in agriculture and public health in Africa- the case of Tanzania.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Project 4: Soil and Water Research

Kingamkono, M.L., A.K.P.R. Tarimo, F.C. Kalimba and S.D. Tumbo 2005. Investigation of Soil Loss and Runoff in Ladder Terraces in the Uluguru Mountains. Journal of the Institution of Engineers Tanzania, The Tanzania Engineer Vol. 8 No. 1, pp 18 ­ 28 A.K.P.R. Tarimo, P.W. Mtakwa, M. Kilasara and M.J.M. Kongola (2004). Effects of indigenous drag-hose sprinkler irrigation systems' practices on soil erosion: A case study of Towero village in the western Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania. Paper presented at the 22nd Conference of the SSSEA, Arusha, Tanzaia, 28th November 3rd December 2004. Nzobonaliba, I. Tumbo, S.D and Tarimo, A.K.P.R. (2004). Assessment of temporal and spatial water uses in the Ruvuma drag-hose irrigation system. Proceedings of Tanzania Society of Agricultural Engineers. Vol. 9. The Role of Engineering and Technology in Poverty Reduction. Proceedings of 2004 Annual Scientific Conference held in Morogoro, 22nd ­ 24th November 2004 Nzobonaliba, I. Tarimo, A.K.P.R. and Tumbo, S.D 2004. Status of suspended sediment load and sprinkler performance in the Ruvuma drag-hose irrigation system. Proceedings of Tanzania Society of Agricultural Engineers. Vol. 9. The Role of Engineering and Technology in Poverty Reduction. Proceedings of 2004 Annual Scientific Conference held in Morogoro, 22nd ­ 24th November 2004. D.N. Kimaro, B.M. Msanya, G.G. Kimbi, M. Kilasara, J.A. Deckers, E. Kileo and S.B. Mwango (2003). Computer ­Captured Expert Knowledge for Land Evaluation of Mountainous areas: A case study of Uluguru Mountains Morogoro, Tanzania UNISWA Res. J. Agric. Sci. Vol. 6(II) 120 ­ 127. Kimaro, D.N., Deckers, J.A., Poesen, J., Kilasara, M. and Msanya, B.M. 2005. Short and medium term assessment of tillage erosion in the Uluguru Mountains Tanzania. Soil and Tillage Research 81: 91 ­ 108 Kimaro, D.N., Kilasara, M., Noah, S.G., Donald, G., Kajiru, K. and Deckers, J.S. 1999. Characteristics and management of soils located on specific landform units in the northern slopes of Uluguru, Mountains, Tanzania. In: Agricultural Research Challenges for the 21st Century. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Research Conference of the Faculty of Agriculture. (Edited by Faculty of Agriculture (FoA)) Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, November 17th-19th 1999, pp 234-242 Kimaro, D.N, Kilasara, M., Msanya, B.M. and Deckers, J.A. 2003. Soil-terrain modelling to quantify spatial variability of interrill and rill erosion on the northern slopes of Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. In: Tenywa, J.S., Tenywa, M.M. Bekunda, M.A. & Taulya, G. Proceedings of the 20th Confernce of the SSSEA, 2nd ­ 6th December 2002, Mbale, Uganda. pp 304 ­ 305. Kimaro, D.N, Kilasara, M., Deckers, J.A. Msanya, B.M. and Noah, S. 2002. Effects of Agro-ecological conditions and slope gradient on tillage erosion on the northern slopes of Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. In: Tenywa, J.S., Tenywa, M.M. Bekunda, M.A. & Taulya, G. Proceedings of the 20th Confernce of the SSSEA, 2nd ­ 6th December 2002, Mbale, Uganda. pp 310 ­ 314. Kimaro, D.N., Msanya, B.M., Kilasara, M., Mtakwa, P.W., Poesen, J. and Deckers, J.A. 2005. Major factors influencing the occurrence of landslides in the northern slopes of the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. In: Mugendi,D.N.,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Kronchi, G., Gicheru, P.T. , Gachene, C.K.K. and Macharia, P.N., Mburu, M., Mureith, J.G. & Maina, F. Proceedings of the 21th Confernce of the SSSEA, 1st ­ 5th December 2002, Eldoret, Kenya, pp 67-78 Kimaro, D.N, Kilasara, M., Msanya, B.M., Deckers, J.A. and Poesen, J. 2004. Magnitude and severity of irrigation-induced landslides on different land management systems in the vegetable growing area of the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. In: Msaky, J.J., Msumali, G.P. and Rwehumbiza, F.B.R. Soil Science Research and Technologies: Foundations for Sustainable Food Security: Proceedings of the 19th Coference of the Soil Science Society of East Africa. 2-7 December 2001, Moshi, Tanzania 204-215. Kimaro, D.N, Kilasara, M., Deckers, J.A., Msanya, B.M. and Poesen, J. 2004. Soil loss due to interrill and rill erosion on different geomorphic units in the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. In: Msaky, J.J., Msumali, G.P. and Rwehumbiza, F.B.R. Soil Science Research and Technologies: Foundations for Sustainable Food Security: Proceedings of the 19th Coference of the Soil Science Society of East Africa. 2-7 December 2001, Moshi, Tanzania 216-231 Kilasara, M.; Noah, S.G. J.; Deckers, S.; D.N. Kimaro, A.K.P.R. Tarimo; P.W. Mtakwa; B.M. Msanya, and J.B. Poesen (2004). The Influence of indiginous irrigation system on soil loss and soil fertility in the Northern slope in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Paper presented at 22nd Annual Conference of The SSSEA, Arusha Tanzania, 29th November - 3rd December 2004.

Teaching

The teaching outputs were as follows: Over 200 undergraduate students pursuing, B. Sc. Agronomy, B.Sc. Agriculture General and B.Sc. Horticulture were imparted with site practical skills on GIS, land husbandry, conservation agriculture, soil and water conservation, rain water harvesting in mountainous areas while using the project site at Towero village for training purposes. Over 90 undergraduate and 10 post graduate students used the GIS facility during their training. Research results of studies conducted in the project area were used for teaching in the following courses: SS 302 Land husbandry and Consevation Agriculture, SS304 land Resources Inventory and Land Use Planning, SS301 Soiland water Conservation, AE 414 Introduction to GIS and Remote Sensing. Over 300 undergraduate students benefited from the training. Six Tanzanian and four Belgium students pursuing postgraduate courses were trained on GIS/land resources data collection, handling and procesing methods.

Extension and outreach

Leaflets, flyers or posters for extension 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Group 2000. Compost making Leaflets, flyers or posters for extension 2001 Green manuring for restoration of degraded lands Leaflets, flyers or posters for extension 2002 Land conservation on steep slopes Leaflets, flyers or posters for extension 2004 Principles of vegetable production Research protocols Assessment of Long-term tillage erosion

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Procedure for estimating rill and inter rill erosion in non-uniform gradient terrain Design of a machine to granulate powdery rock phosphate Separate estimation of the soil loss due to inter rill and rill erosion in mountainous terrain with complex slope characteristics Estimation of soil loss due to long term tillage erosion in a mountainous terrain

Management

Awareness, sensitisation campaigns etc. in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 The Soil and Water Conservation Project led to the establishment of Mlimani Ward Environmental Committee that is responsible for overseeing natural resources conservation on the northern slopes of the Uluguru. The Committee has educational, regulatory and management roles as far as water, land, and biodiversity resources are concerned. It also has a linking role between the central government and other relevant stakeholders and the grass-roots. It has a role of regulating the by-laws concerning environmental conservation and endorses any action plan concerning utilization, protection and management of natural resources in the Ward.

Human Resource Development

B.Sc.: Financial support was provided for the research Project to 11 final year students between AP 2003 and AP 2006 M.Sc.: 2 M.Sc. students were supported financially by the Project while conducting their research work. This partial support included provision of transport and meeting costs of the laboratory soil analyses. Results obtained build on the Project database of the Uluguru Mountains. Nthonyiwa, A.S. 2002. Effective bench terrace width for vegetable growth. A case study of Mgeta-Western Uluguru Mountains-Tanzania. M.Sc. thesis, SUA. Lwegenzya, E.M. 2002 Erosion prediction models for western Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania. M.Sc. thesis, SUA Verbeeck, W. 2004. Edaphological evaluation of indigenous tees in the Uluguru Mountains. M.Sc. thesis, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Proches, H. 2006. Land cover changes and their influence on the occurrence of landslides: a case study of the northern slopes of the Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro Tanzania. M.Sc. Thesis, SUA. One Ph.D., thesis was successfully sponsored. One Ph.D. student: Kimaro D.N. 2003. Assessment of major forms of soil erosion in the Morningside catchment Morningside catchment, Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Ph.D. thesis, SUA, 264 p. Started during Phase I of the Project and was fully supported to the completion of his studies. One other Ph.D. student (Ms. H. Msita) was enroled for a Ph.D. programme at the University of K. U. Leuven during the AP 2006 and was partially supported by the Project funds. The candidate is continuing with her studies with other sources of funding from the Belgium Government. The Project supported 11 B.Sc. research Projects between AP 2003 and AP 2006 by meeting all cost components of such studies. The Project developed an interest to support and promote B.Sc. research work because during this period there were few post graduate students pursuing soil science and related degree programmes. Mpanda, F.M. 2004 was a B.Sc. student who designed, fabricated and tested a phosphate granulation machine.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Infrastructure Management

One laboratory was refurbished and furnished ready for use as a GIS laboratory One water facility (water pond) was constructed to provide irrigation water for the experiments which were conducted under controlled environment before being tested under farmers' conditions. One research site dealing with roof-top induced soil erosion characterization was established in the target Project area.

Mobilisation of additional resources

One M.Sc. Flemish student (Mr. Wannes Verbeeck) obtained a grant to conduct his M.Sc. research work in the Project area. One Flemish student, Annick Verstraele, developed her M.Sc. thesis Anthropology in the project

Project 5: Faculty of Science KR A 1: Research

Articles in international peer reviewed journals: Callebaut, D. K., and Karugila, G. K., (2003). Nonlinear Fourier Analysis for Unmagnetized Plasma Waves. Physica Scripta, 68 (1), p.7-21. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Kikuchi, H., (2004). Nonlinear Stability of a Gravitating Medium with Cosmological Constant. Kuwait Journal of Science and Engineering, 31 (2), p. 33-45. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2005). Solution of Nonlinear Differential Equation for Falling Body in Viscosity Meter. Applied Numerical Analysis and Computational Mathematics (ANACM), 2 (1), p. 54-59. Mwang'ingo, P. L., Teklehaimanot, Z. Lundandala, L.L. and Maliondo, S.M. (2006). Propagating Osyris lanceolata (African sandalwood) through air layering (marcotting); its potential and limitation in Tanzania. Southern African Forestry Journal (SAFJ), 207: 7-14. Mwang'ingo, P. L., Teklehaimanot, Z., Lulandala L.L. and Mwihomeke, S.T. (2005). Host plants of Osyris lanceolata (African Sandalwood) and their influence on its early growth performance in Tanzania. Southern African Forestry Journal (SAFJ) 203: 55-56. Mwang'ingo, P. L., Z. Teklehaimanot, S. M. Maliondo, Msanga, H.P. (2004). Storage and presowing treatment of recalcitrant seeds of Africa Sandalwood (Osyris lanceolata). Seed Science and Technology 32: 547-560. Tungaraza, C., Rousseau, V., Brion, N., Lancelot, C., Gichuki, J., Baeyens, W., and Goeyens, L. (2003). Contrasting nitrogen uptake by diatom and Phaeocystisdominated phytoplankton assemblages in the North Sean. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 292: 19-41. Tungranza, C., Brion, N., Rousseau, V., Baeyens, W., and Goeyens, L. (2003). Influence of bacterial activities on nitrogen uptake rates determined by the application of antibiotics. Oceanologia 45 (3); 473-489. Tungaraza, C, Brion, N and Baeyens W (2005). Comparison of two model in the estimation of nitrogen uptake rates using data from 15-N incubation experiments. Oceanologia, 47 (3); 387 -403 Malisa, A.L., Gwakisa, P., Balthazary, S., Wasser, S.K. and Mutayoba, B.M. (2006). The Potential of mitochondrial DNA markers and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism for domestic and wild species identification. African Journal of Biotechnology 5(18): 1588-1593.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Mbugi, E.R., Mutayoba, B.M., Balthazary, S.T., Malisa, A.L., Nyambo, T.B. and Mshinda, H. (2006). Drug resistance to sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine in Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in Mlimba, Tanzania. Malaria Journal 5:94. Mbugi, E.R., Mutayoba, B.M., Malisa, A.L., Balthazary, S.T., Nyambo, T.B. and Mshinda, H. (2006). African Journal of Biotechnology 5(180: 1655-1662. Maliondo, S.M.S., Abeli, W.S., Ole Meiludie, R.E.L., Migunga, G.A., Kimaro, A.A.1and Applegate, G.B. (2005). Tree species composition and potential timber production of communal miombo woodland in Handeni District, Tanzania. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 117(1): 104-120 Mbaga, S.H., Lyimo, C.M., Kifaro, G.C., and Lekule F.P. (2005). Phenotypic Characterization and Production Performance of Local Pigs Under Village Settings in the Southern Highland Zone, Tanzania. Animal Genetic Resources Information (FAO). AGRI 2005, 37: 83-90. Teklehaimanot, Z.1, Mwang'ingo, P.L., Mugasha, A.G. and Ruffo, C. K. (2004). Influence of the origin of stem cutting, season of collection and auxin application on the vegetative propagation of African Sandalwood (Osyris lanceolata) in Tanzania , SAFJ, 201:13-24. Mwihomeke, S.T., Mwang'ingo, P.L., Maliondo, S.M.S., Mathias, S.C. and Chamshama, S.A.O. (2004). Comparative growth performance of different Casuariana species and provenance at Lushoto in the West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania SAFJ, 200: 39-49.

Articles in national peer reviewed journals: Chibunda R T, Tungaraza C and Pereka A E (2006). Concentration of Mercury in Fish from Nungwe bay of Lake Victoria: Public Health Implication. Tanzania Verterinary Journal 23 (2) 135-145). Mwang'ingo, P. L., Teklehaimanot, Z, Hall, J.B. and Zilihona, J.E.I. (in press). Sex distribution, reproductive biology and regeneration in the dioecious species Osyris lanceolata (African Sandalwood) in Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation, 76. Brion, N, Nzeyimana, E, Goeyens, L, Nahimana, D, Tungaraza, C and Baeyens, W (2006). Nitrogen uptake and river inputs in Northern Lake Tanganyika. Journal of Great Lakes Research 32, (3); 553-564

Conference proceedings ( full papers) and chapters in books: Karugila, Geoffrey K., (1993). Numerical Analysis of an Initial Value Problem Arising in Hydrology. Proceedings of the 19th SAMSA Symposium, Gaborone, Botswana, 13th - 17th December 1993, p. 271 ­ 276. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Makarov, V. I. (2003). Coincidences in the Time Scales of Solar Phenomena. The Proceedings of Climatological and Ecological Aspects of the Solar Observatory, 7-11 July 2003, Pulkovo, St. Petersburg, Russia, p. 201-206. (in Russian and English). Callebaut, D. K., Callebaut, A. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2004). Non-uniform Equilibrium and Stability of an Infinite Newtonian Gravitating Medium with Cosmological Constant. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS), 28-31 March 2004, Pisa, Italy, p. 823-826. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2004). Plasma stability up to higher orders including its magnetic effects. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS), 28-31 March 2004, Pisa, Italy, p. 827-830.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2004). Nonlinear Fourier Analysis of Systems of Partial Differential Equations with Computer Algebra: Survey and New Results. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics and itsApplications (ICMA), edited by Shyam L. Kalla and Man M. Chawla, 5-7 April 2004, State of Kuwait, p. 161-177. Callebaut, Dirk K., Karugila, Geoffrey K. and Makarov, Valentin I.(2004). Effects of drifts in convective zone. Proceedings of the 223th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union: Multi-wavelength Investigations of Solar Activity, edited by Alexander V. Stepanov, Elena E. Benevolenskaya and Alexander G. Kosovichev, 14-19 June 2004, Pulkovo, St. Petersburg, Russia, p. 89-90. Callebaut, Dirk K., Callebaut, An K. and Karugila, Geoffrey K. (2004). Nonlinear Analysis of Alfvén Waves in a Uniform, Gravitating Medium. Proceedings of the 17th International Wroclaw Symposium and Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC 2004), G. Lewandowski. and J. M. Janiszewski (Editors), 29 June ­ 1 July 2004, Wroclaw, Poland, p. 153-156. Callebaut, Dirk K. and Karugila, Geoffrey K., (2004). Nonlinear Fourier Approach Yielding High Fields in Ball Lightning. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Ball Lightning (ISBL04), edited by J.Y. Liu, H. Ofuruton and M. Kamoganda, 3-6 August 2004, Chung-Li, Taiwan, p. 38-43. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2004). Non-uniform equilibrium of an infinite Newtonian gravitating medium with cosmological constant. In The Book of Extended Abstracts of the International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM) 2004, edited by T. E. Simos and Ch. Tsitouras, 10-14 September 2004, Chalkis, Greece, p. 67-70. Neke, S. M., Mohamed, H. I., and Shumbusho, G. N (2003). "Explaining social-cultural and economic inequality in Tanzania: Analysis of some of the narratives from the medium of instruction (MOI) debate". Uongozi Journal of Management Development, Vol 15(1), pp22-43. Neke, S. M and Shumbusho, G. N (2003). "Language policy, hegemony of English and linguistic capital: Readings from the debater on medium of instruction (MOI) in Tanzania." Uongozi Journal of Management Development, Vol. 15(2), pp.173-188. Neke, S. M., Mafu, S. T. A and Ndoloi, D. B (2004). "Revisiting the inescapable alliance: a review of the school textbooks, schooling and ideology." Papers in Education and Development (PED), Vol. 24, pp 25-44. Neke, S. M. (2005). "The medium of instruction in Tanzania: reflections onlanguage, education and society". Changing English: Studies in reading and culture Vol. 12 (1), pp73-83. Y.C. Muzanila, B.P.M. Tiisekwa, I. Ishuza, N. Temu and N. Mrema (2002). Tomato Paste Production and Standardisation for Storage Stability. Proceedings of the First Collaborative Research Workshop on Food Security. Organised jointly by Sokoine University of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Morogoro, Tanzania, 28th ­30th May 2002. Pp. 215-226. Y.C. Muzanila, B.P.M. Tiisekwa, N. Temu, I. Ishuza, E. Marijani and E. Mbiha (2002). Development, Adoption and Impact of Orange Processing Technologies Disseminated to Farmers in Muheza District, Tanzania. Proceedings of the First Collaborative Research Workshop on Food Security. Organised jointly by Sokoine University of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Morogoro,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Tanzania, 28th ­30th May 2002. Pp.227-244. N. Temu, B.P.M. Tiisekwa, Y.C. Muzanila, I. Ishuza, and E. Mbiha (2002). Pricing for profit of rural micro enterprises-based products: the case of processed tomato sauce and orange juice in Muheza district, Tanzania. Proceedings of the Second Collaborative Research Workshop on Food Security. Organised jointly by Sokoine University of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Morogoro, Tanzania, 28th ­30th May 2003. Pp. 281-288. Y.C. Muzanila and Zavallah Sadiki (2005). Comparison of the nutritional values of peeled and unpeeled Irish potatoes. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interdisplinary Research. VLIR. and The University of Zambia. Taj Pamodzi Hotel, Lusaka, Zambia 11th -12th August 2005. Pp. 34-40. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Makarov, V. I., (2005). Reaction by E x B Drift. Proceedings of the 10th Pulkovo International Conference on Solar Physics: "Solar Activity as a Factor of Cosmic Weather", edited by A.V. Stepanov, A.A. Solov'ev and V.A. Dergachev, 04-09 July 2005, Pulkovo, Saint Petersburg, Russia, p. 373-378. (Mostly in Russian) Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2005). Chasma Perturbations. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2005), edited by J.A. Kong, 22-26 August 2005, Hangzhou, China, p. 720-723. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2005). Powerful Nonlinear Plasma Waves from Moderate First Order Perturbations. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2005), edited by J.A. Kong, 22-26 August 2005, Hangzhou, China, p. 724-728. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2005). On Vladimirov's Approximation for Ideal Inhomogeneous MHD. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2005), edited by J.A. Kong, 22-26 August 2005, Hangzhou, China, p. 729-731. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2006). Higher Order Fourier Analysis for Multiple Species Plasma. Proceedings of Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2006), edited by J.A. Kong, 26-29 March 2006, Cambridge, MA, USA, p. 409-411. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2006). Solution for Integro-Differential Equation of Chasmas. Proceedings of the 18th International Wroclaw Symposium and Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC 2006), edited by G. Lewandowski and J.M. Janiszewski , 28 ­ 30 June 2006, Wroclaw, Poland, p. 447-450. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2006). Triggering of Instabilities by Accumulation of Small Oscillations. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Unconventional Plasmas (ISUP-06), edited by D.K. Callebaut, G.C. Dijkhuis and H. Kikuchi, 14-16 August 2006, TUE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, p. 23-35. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2006). Ball Lightning with Force-Free Magnetic Fields and Runaway Current. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Ball Lightning (ISBL-06), edited by G.C. Dijkhuis, D.K. Callebaut and M. Lu, 16-18 August 2006, TUE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, p.33-38. Callebaut, D. K., Hady, A. A., Karugila, G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2006). LargeScale Unipolar Regions Generated from Undeep Magnetic Fields. Proceedings of the 233th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union: Solar Activities and its

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Magnetic Origin, edited by V. Bothmer and A. A. Hady, Cambridge University Press, GB, ISSN 1743-9213, p. 57-58. Wily Maenhaut, Stelyus Mkoma, Wan Wang, Xuguang Chi and Nico Raes (2006). Aerosal Chemistry and Chemical Mass Closure at Two Sites in Tanzania. Atmospheric Chemistry at the Interfaces, Cape Town, Sept. 2006. Joint IGAC/ CACGP/WMO Symposium, 17-22 September 2006. Wang, W., Mkoma, S. Viana, M., Chi, X., Cafmeyer, J., Raes, N. and Maenhaut, W. Aerosol Chemical Mass Closure during 2004 Winter and Summer Sampling Campaigns in Ghent, Belgium. Proceedings of the European Aerosol Conference 2005, 28 August ­ 2 September 2005, Ghent, Belgium. Malisa, A., Pearce, R., Abdulla, S., Mshinda, H., Kachur, P., Bloland, P. and Roper C. (2007). The rate of selection of resistant Plasmodium falciparum parasite population in southeastern Tanzania, prior and after antimalarial policy change. The Fifth AMANET biennial conference; 26th February ­ 1st March 2007, Zanzibar Beach Resort, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Malisa, A., Pearce, R. Abdulla, S. Mshinda, H. Kachur, P. Bloland, P. and Ropver C. (2007). Evolution of P. falciparum strains resistant to SulfadoxinePyrimethamine in Southeastern Tanzania. The 22nd Annual Joint Scientific Conference, March 6-9, 2007, AICC, Arusha, Tanzania. Kimaro, A.A. Timmer, V.R., Mugasha, A.G., Chamshama, S.A.O. and Kimaro, D.A. (2006). Vector diagnosis of nutrient interactions in a maize-base rotational woodlot cropping system at Mkundi, Morogoro, Tanzania. In: S.A.O. Chamshama, L. Nsubemuki, S. Idd, R.E. Swai, M.L. Mhando, E. Sabas, C. Balama, L. Mbwambo, and M.A. Mndolwa (Eds). Proceedings of the Second National Agroforestry and Environment Workshop. Patnership and Linkages for Greater Impact in Agroforestry and Environmental Awareness. 14-17 March 2006, Mkapa Hall, Mbeya, Tanzania 7-20 pp. Kimaro, A.A. Chamshama, S.A.O. Mugasha, A.G., and D.A.Kimaro. (2006). Effects of Gliricidia sepium and Minjingu phosphate rock on phosphorus availability and maize yields in a phsphorus deficient soil of Morogoro, Tanzania. In S.A.O. Chamshama, L. Nshubemuki, S. Idd, R.E. Swai, M.L. Mhando, E. Sabas, C. Malama, L. Mbwambo and M.A. Mndolwa (Eds). Proceedings of the Second National Agroforestry and Environment Workshop: Partnership and Linkages for Greater Impact in National Agroforestry and Environmental Awareness. 14-17 March 2006, Mkapa Hall, Mbeya, Tanzania. 21-28 pp. Chamshama, S.A.O., Mugasha, A.G., Kimaro, A.A. and Ngegba, M. (2006). Agroforestry technologies for semi- and sub-humid areas of Tanzania: an overview in S.A.O. Chamshama, L. Nshubemuki, S. Idd, R.E. Swai, M.L. Mhando, E. Sabas, C. Malama, L. Mbwambo and M.A. Mndolwa (Eds). Proceedings of Second National Agroforestry and Environment Workshop: Partnership and Linkages for Greatr Impact in Agroforestry and Environmental Awareness. 14-17 March 2006, Mkapa Hall, Mbeya, Tanzania. 65-81pp Ngegba, M. Chamshama, S.A.O., Mugasha, A.Ag., Kimaro, A.A.(2006). Components performance and residual effect in relay intercropping of Tephrosia vogalii and maize in semiarid Gairo, Tanzania. In S.A.O. Chamshama, L. Nshubemuki, S. Idd, R.E. Swai, M.L. Mhando, E. Sabas, C. Malama, L. Mbwambo and M.A. Mndolwa (Eds). Proceedings of Second National Agroforestry and Environment Workshop: Partnership and Linkages for Greater Impact in Agroforestry and Environmental Awareness. 14-17 March 2006,

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Mkapa Hall, Mbeya, Tanzania. 37-53 pp. Machunda, R. (2006). International conference on Pesticides use in developing countries: Implications for Public Health, held at Arusha Conference Centre, 16-20 October 2006.

Conference abstracts Callebaut, D K, Karugila G K and Khater A H, (2005). Stability in a Nwetonianlike universe with bilinear cosmological term. In the Book of Abstracts for the General Congress of the Société Francaise de Physique (SFP) and Belgian Physical Society (BPSI), 29Aug. ­ 2 Sept. 2005, Lille France, pp 305. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2005). Two-dimensional generalization of the Euler-Mascheroni constant. In The Book of Extended Abstracts of the International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM) 2005, edited by T. E. Simos, G. Psihoyios and Ch. Tsitouras, 16-20 September 2005, Rhodes, Greece, p. 114-118. Callebaut, D. K., Karugila, G. K. and Makarov, V. I. (2005). Reaction by E B Drifts in Convective Zone. In The Book of Abstracts of the Astronomy and Space Physics at Kyiv University, Memorial International Conference, 22-26 May 2005, Kiev, Ukraine, p. 69. Callebaut, D. K., Hady, A. A., Karugila¸ G. K. and Khater, A. H., (2006). LargeUnipolar Regions Generated From Un-deep Magnetic Fields. In The Book of Abstract of the 233th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, edited by A. A. Abdel Hady and W. El Hanafy, 31 March ­ 04 April 2006, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 9. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2006). Powerful Nonlinear Plasma Waves from Moderate First Order Perturbations in Cylindrical Coordinates. In The Book of Abstracts for the Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2006), edited by J.A. Kong, 2-5 August 2006, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 49. Callebaut, D. K. and Karugila, G. K., (2007). Higher order analysis of plasma cylinder waves: radial power law. In The Book of Abstracts for the Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS 2007), edited by J.A. Kong, 26-30 March 2007, Beijing, China, pp. 984. Mwang'ingo, P.L., Msangi, T. H., Mhando, l. and l. Nshubemuki, (2004). Tree Biotechnology in Tanzania application and future prospects. TAFORI Newsletter, 4(2): 37-43. Mwang'ingo, P.L., Zilihona, I.J., Mathias, S.C. and Msangi, T.H. (2004). Growth performance of ten Families of Olea capensis in the West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI) Newsletter 4(1): 7-11. Mwang'ingo, P.L., Lundandala, L.L., and Shellimoh, M. (2003) Influence of origin of stem cuttings and different levels of indole-3-butyric acid on the vegetative propagation of Parinari curatellifolia TAFORI Newsletter, 3(1): 12-19

KR A 2: Teaching

Number of courses/training programmes developed The academic programme which was developed during the SUA-VLIR Programme is the B.Sc. degree in Environmental Sciences and Management. Courses taught are environmental related like: Land and water pollution and control, environmental soil sciences, Environmental Chemistry, Environmental Geomorphology, Technology and environment, waste management, environ-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

mental impact assessment environmental toxicology and health hazards etc. The program also has Meteorological courses like, Introduction to meteorology, synoptic meteorology, dynamic meteorology, tropical meteorology, physical climatology, meteorology instrumentation. Atmospheric physics etc. The Faculty also offers Basic Sciences courses to all (16) undergraduate degree programs at SUA including, Mathematics, Statistics, Biometry, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Botany and Ecology. (But some courses are elective to other Degree Programs so may not be attended by all students in a degree program). Textbook development : Bangu, N.T.A. and Muzanila Y.C. (1999).Introduction to General Chemistry. Vol. I. Atomic structure, Molecular structure and Chemical bonding. Faculty of Science, Sokoine University of Agriculture. Mjemah, I C (2007). Ph.D. Thesis. Hydrogeological and Hydrogeochemical Investigation of a Coastal Aquifer in Dar es Salaam. Ghent University, Belgium. Mwang'ingo, P.L., (2006). Introduction to plant taxonomy: a compendium. Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania vii + 36pp. Tungaraza, C., Mkoma, S., Elisante, E. (2004). A Compendium for General Chemistry: Practical approach. Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Sciences. Sokoine University of Agriculture.Excursion guides

KR A 3: Extension and Outreach

Manuals or technical guides; Field Practical Training Guide, Field Practical Committee, Faculty of Science, Sokoine University of Agriculture.

KR A 4: Management KRA 5: Human Resource Development: Four staff trained at Ph.D. level in Belgium. One Lab.Technician was trained at Diploma level and another one attended a computer course. Two staff members attended International conferences. Lab. Attendants and an office attendant were contracted and paid wages. KRA 6: Infrastructure management

Twenty computers were purchased for students and staff. Laboratories were equipped and some old equipment was maintained.

KRA 7: Mobilisation of additional resources/opportunities Four staff are doing their Ph.D.s, with sponsorship from other sources, studying in Canada, UK, South Africa and Tanzania. Two technicians completed their undergraduate studies at SUA through Government sponsorship and another one is in his second year of study.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex xi : collective Self assessment from northern Stakeholders in the Sua-vlir Programme

Please mention the three single most important institutional effects on the partner university as a whole that you would attribute to the Partner Programmes (Phase I and Phase II). Enhanced quality of university education - elaborated through HC investments (M.Sc., Ph.D., diplomas, etc) NB: also through cross-cutting initiatives like research workshop, INASP, IFS, etc.

Please assess (add figure between brackets) the following statements on a 10-point scale ranging from: Where 1 = fully correct; 10 = fully incorrect

The partner university has not been able to optimally utilise the full potential of the IUC partnership SCORE: 9 The potential of the IUC partnership was successfully used, capacity building of SUA was realised. There was win-win interaction between the Flemish and the local research groups and the local university's capacity was strengthened. NB: We have some remarks on the administrative VLIR system, though, which were at a certain stage influencing the capacity to fully use the IUC potential: The accounting specifications imposed by VLIR were not easily accommodated within the account system of SUA. The financial regulations were in the beginning not very clear. In the Phase II this was much improved. We were confronted with some management constraints and changing of coordinating staff. The SUA-VLIR project was the proving ground for other IUC projects established afterwards. The coming of the FoS project was scheduled too late, which has limited its outcomes. Due to reasons that were not related to their quality but to external reasons (budget limited to 75 %)

The IUC partnership and the strategic development of the PU was fully integrated SCORE: 2 Although the projects involved in the IUC were limited we still managed to align to the strategic planning of SUA. The IUC partnership represented a good balance between needs/interests of the South and interests of the North SCORE: 2 For the projects which had a minimum of research orientated strategy, the win-win was very clear: not only because SUA was able to upgrade its management systems, but also because students could easily take added benefit from the enhanced possibilities. Common publications and the organisation of extra activities like workshops are

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

of profit of both the S and N stakeholders. For the projects like ICT and SNAL (score 3), though, the profits were mainly for the Southern partner.

In some cases the expertise provided by the North may not have been entirely relevant SCORE: 10 We don't see any matter where this experience was irrelevant In case VLIR UOS had provided us with budget support of this level more could have been achieve as compared to using the funding in the framework of academic collaboration with the Flemish university With budget support there would not have been any partnership which is valued very highly by both the North and the South Stakeholders. The resources provided through the IUC partnerships were too thinly spread and not sufficiently focussed SCORE: 7 Due to limited resources, the programme had to make choices and left out the nutrition and economics projects. In spite of the LT nature of the partnership and the considerable resources obtained the IUC partnership has not really enabled the partner university to deliver on its institutional mission to make a difference in terms of national or regional development SCORE: 10 The IUC partnership was lacking coherence in terms of its constituting projects SCORE: 9 The coherence of the project was checked every year and where necessary measures were taken on time We have done everything possible to enhance the chances of sustaining the results of the IUC partnerships SCORE: 2 We fully took on board the management of SUA in order to obtain real sustainability. Even the demand-side-driven strategy did not give us too much constraint. A lot of emphasis was given to basic infrastructure: SNAL, ICT, FoS. The interpersonal relations between the teams in the implementation phase also guarantee the sustainability of the project. Given the human capacity put in place, sustainability of the project can be guaranteed. SUA offered a permanent job to several of the IUC-collaborators and scholars, and local partners were involved and given a head start in international networks. The capacity to apply for other international funds was strengthened. The IUC partnership and its PP is truly owned by the PU SCORE: 1 Library, ICT, investments are fully integrated into the normal university system. The projects with a strong research component have become very active, in one case even upgraded to a Centre, and are actively continuing iunternational collaboration, with the Flemish partners but also with others.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The IUC project can even after the 10-year period still survive thanks to its official recognition by the university management.

Please list the five most important lessons learned in terms of utilising international cooperation programmes in order to contribute to institutional capacity building processes. Long term projects are by far more useful to in this perspective than short term programmes. Good planning is important but not sufficient to have a good project. You need good collaboration between PL's and team members in N and S; Don't change the rules of a programme in the course of its implementation. The donor system must be more flexible and take into account rules and regulations of the local partner university. (example: bookkeeping system, roll-over of funds) Too many reports keep you off the real duties, especially when these reports are too much process-oriented and not enough output-oriented. Basket funding can offer interesting opportunities. (although this idea is not shared by all PL's) Please explain the above ranking. There is no ranking, they are all equally important If taken back to the design stage of the IUC partnership, we would do the following differently: Instead of being completely demand-driven, projects must be more oriented towards win-win situations. Donor-coordination is important More output-oriented (publications, Ph.D.'s, masters, money-generating external to the project) Please explain the above ranking. There is no ranking, they are all equally important The IUC programme is presented as a partnership. This notion is associated with a range of characteristics. Please list the most important attributes that support the concept of IUC being built on partnership. The original design and the redesigning every year were done in collaboration between N and S We realised a framework which was able to prevent and solve problems Objectives are very clear to all partners and everybody sticks to the objectives Both in the N and in the S there is a strong institutional support for the IUC project. Many personal relationships were built over the 10 years the programme was running between PL and team members from N and S. Many of these personal networks are the glue of the partnership. This is a

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

social capital which will survive a long time beyond the lifetime of the programme.

If existing, please list the three most important attributes that contradict the concept of IUC being built on partnership: Sometimes too much influence of the North in decision-making Please explain the above rankings. There is no ranking, they are all equally important although number 5 is extremely important. Remark for VLIR: - most of the planning and evaluations every year went smoothly except often for the financial matters. Because of the strict and not always equal (e.g. 5% rule for N and S) financial regulations and the huge personal input the universities in N and S were supposed to offer, the partnership was sometimes threatened.

Where do you think the IUC programme has had the most impact on the partner university ? Please rank 1-5: 1 = substantial impact; 2 = fairly substantial impact; 3 = some impact; 4 = very little impact; 5 = no impact at all.

The Principal University (PU) ie SUA, developed the staff; Score 2; although much was realised, there is still much to do (Ph.D.'s, masters and research capacity development), but this varies considerably between projects. The university improves/increases its offer in HE; Score 1; the PU improved the quality (not increased but improved) of its curricula, ICT, Labs, Library; transport facilities. The partner university improves/increases its research activities, Score 2; it is definitely true for some projects, but less important for others. The partner university generates research outputs; Score 2; it is true for Rodents, Soil science and Economics but to a lesser extent in nutrition and FoS The PU is provided with equipment and hardware; Score 1; all components can benefit of the equipment. The PU is provided with scientific literature; Score 2. The library improvement has greatly increased access to literature. The PU increases the attractiveness to students and staff; Score 2; proved by increase of number of students and number of staff at SUA (although it is difficult to assess the many different factors contributing to this increase). There was only a very limited loss of project-trained staff, nearly all decided to stay at SUA. The PU is developing institutionally; Score 2; a good management structure is now in place, the project also helped with important details like electronic notebook PU is able to establish international and regional university networks, Score 2; examples: presence at international conferences, S-S, more donors now The PU renders services to the society; Score 2; The PU already ren-

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

dered such services to a strog degree before the start of the IUS. This has certainly increased in the fields of ICT, Rodents and Soil

Elaborate at what level synergies within the partner programme and among the constituent projects have been achieved or pursued? Among others, the following synergy could be considered: Inputs (shared resources such as staff, vehicles, labs etc) Staff (drivers, central secretariat), vehicles, labs, ICT, library, are all shared resources Research (joint research initiatives, multi usable research outputs, mixed teams and/or exchanges, agreed upon research site or partners etc) In soil science, rodents, economics are inter-collaborating teams. They bid together (with success) for international research funds, realise joint publications and they have a good view on which projects to realise jointly in the future. Capacity building (joint training, logistical and infrastructural support, exchanges oflessons learned, tools and instruments etc) ICT, SNAL, labs, software, joint training for Soil and Rodents (students), software, etc Extension (agreed upon extension partners, coordinated extension activities or material development etc) S-S Rodents and Soil, Soil-Rodent (e.g. in extension to public health authorities in plague-affected regions), Synergy between IUC Mekelle and IUC SUA.

annex xii : northern Stakeholder view of management of the iuc programme (Phase i and ii)

Overall expenditure

In general the budget was expended. There was very little underspending of the general budget. The small underspending occurred when we had the system rule that budgets could not be shifted from the current to the following year even for a few months.

Shifts between budget lines and projects

We only had to ask once for a shift going beyond the 15% rule. Expenditure in the North versus the South If money was budgeted as being used in the North it was used for the benefits of the South also except for travel costs of the Flemish counterparts and for the Flemish coordination costs (including the coordinator's contribution)

Available resources versus programme requirements (distribution over projects, cost efficiency)

Every project got the commonly approved budget. FoS had the highest part (only realised in phase 2). The coordination took also a large part, which is due to the fact that several items of common interest (transport, maintenance, communication,...) were put on the coordination account. To our view the programme was cost efficient.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Manner in which the partner programme budget is aligned to the institutional budget

SUA itself considers the IUC budget as an additional opportunity to realise their mission and vision.

The quality of resource utilisation (monitoring, leveraging, alignment to institutional budget or external opportunities etc.)

Everything went smoothly. No real problems showed up and the programme succeeded in fulfilling its goals in line with the above mentioned items. Also considering the above, when reviewing the financial management, how would the group assess strengths and weaknesses of the current status of financial management taking into account, among others, the issues listed below? Please explain. 1 = very strong 2 = strong; 3 = neutral; 4 = weak 5 = very weak

Score (1 to 5)

Phase i Adherence to agreed upon procedures (agreement, advice etc) Adherence to planning and budgets Quality of consultation in case of deviation and/or rejected expenses (by Flemish university, VLIR-UOS or DGDC) Programme wide understanding of relevant definitions (budget lines, scholarship costs etc. 3 Phase ii 1 in the beginning the vlir procedures were not clear explains the difference in quotes for phase 1 and phase 2 except for the slight delay in Ph.d. (which is acceptable) everything went as scheduled although we did not always agree, consultation was ok. because of the lack of clear financial rules in phase 1, some problems showed up although there is overregulation the rules are more or less clear now in phase2 the problem though is that they are often not in line with local Sua regulations which makes it sometimes difficult to implement

Short explanation

2 3

1 2

3

1

Clarity and transparency of programme level procedures Willingness to accommodate one another ...

2 2

1 1 no problems encountered

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex xiii : Southern Stakeholder view of management of the iuc programme (Phase i and ii)

When reviewing the overall programme management, what would the group consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the current status of programme management? 1 = very strong 2 = strong; 3 = neutral; 4 = weak 5 = very weak

Score (1 to 5)

Communication, monitoring and critical review Planning and budgeting Flexibility and pragmatism Consultation and participation Result tracking 1 1 1 1 2 too much process-oriented and not enough output-oriented due to iuc regulations

Short explanation

although too much micromanagement, the programme went smoothly

Academic standards

1

How would the group of project leaders define its further role in terms of building upon the IUC partner programme? Please reflect on issues such as leadership, meetings and the contact with the team members etc. The group considers the built-up contacts being of value. Therefore they decide on continuing: meetings, academic contacts and collaboration in the framework of other projects (other donors) Please formulate your three main recommendations to VLIR-UOS in terms of improving the effectiveness of the IUC programme: (most important) Be more result-oriented Consider the local rules and regulations Don't change the rules in the course of the implementation Please mention the three single most important institutional effects on the partner university as a whole that you can attribute to the Partner Programmes (Phase I and Phase II).

Effect

Enhancement of the quality of University education at SUA.

Elaboration

there was great human resource capacity building in terms of people that were trained at Ph.d., masters, bachelors as well as diploma levels. research was also very much improved owing to the equipment that was obtained through the collaboration. iuc funding was crucial in enhancing the elevation of the basic Sciences unit (bSu) into the Faculty of Science (FoS) rodent research results indicated the magnitude of pest problems, hence Sua decided to have a full centre dealing not only with rodents but with other pests as well. due to iuc funding, Sua now boasts to be a centre of excellence in rodent research in africa.

Elevation of the Basic Sciences Unit (BSU) to the Faculty of Science (FoS) The formation of the SUA Pest Management Centre/ Excellence in rodent research

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Our university has not been able to optimally utilise the full potential of the IUC partnership (10) Please explain: SUA was able to optimally use the full potential of the IUC partnership The integration of the IUC partnership and the strategic development of our university was well taken care of (1) Please explain: The formulation of the Programme was such that Projects were geared towards fulfilling the mission and vision of SUA to the year 2005 and beyond. The IUC partnership represented an good balance between needs of the South and interest of the North (2) Please explain: During Phase I the Programme was based on demand-driven Projects while in Phase II the Projects were not only demand-driven, but they were also based on mutual-interest. Projects that were of a research nature ensured mutual interest as well as donor-demands; hence presenting what one could call a win-win situation. In some cases, the expertise provided by the North may not have been entirely relevant (10) Please explain: Projects were always formulated after mutual discussion and agreement. We, at SUA, always found relevance in what our Northern counterparts advised us. In case VLIR-UOS had provided us with budget support of this level, more could have been achieved as compared to using the funding in the framework of academic collaboration with the Flemish universities (10) Please explain: This was a unique type of funding where universities in the North work hand-in-hand with those in the South to solve problems that would otherwise be impossible if either party worked alone. The VLIR-UOS support will go a long way to foster academic collaboration. The resources provided through the IUC partnerships were too thinly spread and not sufficiently focussed (2) Please explain: SUA received 75 % of full IUC funding. During Phase I, this funding was too thinly spread to 7 Components. These were reduced to 5 Projects during Phase II. However, in both Phase I and Phase II, the resources were sufficiently focussed. In spite of the long term nature of the partnership, and the considerable resources obtained, the IUC partnership has not really enabled our university to deliver on its institutional mission to make a difference in terms of national or regional development (10)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Please explain: SUA is now a centre of excellence in rodent research, we have excellent/attractive degree programmes whose curricular were drawn using IUC funding, SUA has been able to build its teaching capacity through staff training at Diploma (> 10), Masters (3?) and Ph.D. (11) level using IUC funding . SUA can now boast of being able to almost fully deliver institutional mission.

The IUC partnership was lacking coherence in terms of its constituting projects (10) Please explain: The Projects were suggested by the Partner University, discussed by both the North and South and an amicable agreement was reached. We have done everything possible to enhance the chances of sustaining the results of the IUC partnership (2) Please explain: Although a lot has been done to enhance the sustaining of the results of the IUC, we believe there is still room for improvement. SUA has promised to play her part in ensuring that sustainability is enhanced. The Administration has absorbed most of the people that were trained by the Programme; it has retained the Coordinator, his Deputy as well as PLs in position to enhance continuity etc. The coordinators and PLs have vowed to sustain the results of this collaboration. The IUC partnership and its partner programme is truly owned by our university (1). Please explain: It was designed to help SUA to solve problems so as to realise her mission and vision, and it has done so. SUA recognises the Programme as one of those rare Programmes that had real impact.

Lessons learned

Please list the five most important lessons learned in terms of utilising international cooperation programmes in order to contribute to institutional capacity building processes. (most important) Defined period of collaboration, with a reduction in funding towards the end of the collaboration Co-Programme and Project formulation and implementation Having a host centre/University Strong institutional support: both in the North and in the South Strong inter-personal relations (some how related to no.2, above) Please explain the above ranking, including manners in which these lessons will be taken up by management in order for institutional learning to take place. Having a definite starting and ending point always instils discipline in the partner university to learn before it is `weaned'. Co-formulation of the Programme and Projects built up strong inter-personal relations. These were

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

very crucial to the attainment of the objectives of the collaboration. A strong host centre very much helped to cushion the partner University from delayed disbursement from VLIR. If this were not the case, then the success that the collaboration achieved would be a little bit less. The support provided to the Programme invigorated the PLs as well as other team members to work to their utmost, knowing that their effort was recognised. If taken back to the design stage of the IUC partnership, we would do the following differently: (most important) Advise that partner University rules and regulations be considered Would request, from the outset, that rules and regulations are not changed in the middle of implementing a Programme Would call for the partner University to go for donor coordination. This seems to be lacking at the moment Would go for rolling over of funds Would make the reports more output-oriented Please explain the above ranking. For the most important item, during the implementation of the IUC partnership with SUA, there were a number of occasions when SUA rules and regulations were not taken into account. This adversely affected the relationship and it also defeated (though to a very low extent) the positive intention of the partnership: to enhance SUA's academic and institutional capacity. The other rankings are not necessarily according to importance. The IUC programme is presented as a partnership. This notion is associated with a range of characteristics. Please list the three most important attributes that support the concept of IUC being built on partnership. (most important) Formulation was by mutual agreement between the North and the South, and it considered the needs of the South partner as a priority There was strong institutional support in the Universities in the North as well as in the South. VLIR `greased' this relationship and support Project Leaders, Coordinators communicated regularly by e-mail, phone as well as through exchange visits to learn from each other and foster a lasting relationship

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

annex xiv : Southern Stakeholder assessment of the impact of the Sua-vlir Programme

Where do you think the IUC programme has had the most impact on the partner university? Please rank 1-5: 1 = substantial impact; 2 = fairly substantial impact; 3 = some impact; 4 = very little impact; 5 = no impact at all.

Score (1 to 5)

The partner university develops its staff e.g. upgrading of the staff to M.Sc.. and/or Ph.D. level; attracting additional staff members, ... 2

Short explanation

the iuc Programme helped to train more that 10 staff members at diploma level, at least 11 at Ph.d. level and a number of others at masters level> this is by no means a small achievement attractive curricula were developed for Faculty of Science (b.Sc. environmental Sciences and management), agri-business (Faculty of agriculture), and m.Sc. nutrition (Faculty of agriculture). the ict is planning distance education. due to the investments acquire through the partnership, Sua is now able to do a lot more research than before. it is attracting students together with researchers from the ministry of agriculture and Food Security to use its facilities (at a cost, thus ensuring funds for maintaining the equipment). true with the rodent research (Project 3) and Soil and water research (Project 4). a substantial amount of equipment was acquired for FoS, Soil and water as well as for ict, rodent research and agri-business. these are available for use by the whole university.

The partner university improves/increases its offer in higher education e.g. developing new curricula, adapting existing curricula by including new/more research based projects, introduction of new technologies (distance education), ...

2

The partner university improves/increases its research activities e.g. new research projects, attracting Ph.D.. students, launching a research training programme, ...

2

The partner university generates research output e.g. increase in the number of publications, patents, of Ph.D..s delivered The partner university is provided with equipment / hardware e.g. installation of a LAN / internal computer network; installation of computer classes; installation of a link with internet, installation of a generator, rehabilitation of a building, installation of a distance education network, installation of a student registration system, ... The partner university is provided with scientific literature / information and with specialised personnel that can work with the new information search and delivery technologies e.g. the university got subsriptions to books, magazines, databases, ... The partner university increases its attractiveness to students/staff e.g. better study programmes attract better students; better reputation / better working environment (infrastructure) attracts better qualified staff,

2

1

2

very true in case of the Sokoine national agricultural library (Snal). again the literature is available to all.

2

there is a significant annual increase of students and staff who want to join Sua. however, this may not necessarily be solely due spin offs of the collaboration

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

The partner university is developing institutionally e.g. the university is professionalising its management relating to e.g. research policy (creation of a Research Council), international cooperation policy (creation of an international relations office), personnel policy, financing policy, developing quality assurance systems, ... The partner university is able to establish international / regional university networks e.g. the university gets involved in university networks, ... The partner university renders services to society e.g. more extension work Others (please identify)

1

it is now a centre of excellence in a number of fields in the Sadc region; the accounting system is now fully electronic while it was manual a few years ago.

2

there is South-South, Southnorth-South as well as north South networking. ict, Snal, rodent research, Soil and water research and FoS are rendering services to the society.

1

Please elaborate at what level synergies within the partner programme and among the constituent projects have been achieved or pursued? Among others, the following synergy could be considered: Inputs (shared resources such as staff, vehicles, labs etc.) Vehicles, drivers and secretarial services were pooled in the Programme Administration Office. Facilities like laboratories (GIS etc.), the library ICT (computers) were all shared Research (joint research activities, multi usable research outputs, mixed teams and/ or exchanges, agreed upon research site or partners etc.) Project with a research component (Soil and Water research, Rodent research, Agribusiness) did some of the ventures together. There is research collaboration between faculties (Faculty of Agriculture and the Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation - Department of wild life) Capacity building (joint training, logistical and infrastructural support, exchanges of lessons learnt, tools and instruments etc.) IFS proposal writing workshop (funded by VLIR ­ UOS through IFS) conducted at SUA was open to all and sundry. A seminar is foreseen in February where all Projects will present papers in their field. Extension (agreed upon extension partners, coordinated extension activities or material development etc.) There are a number of synergies, e.g. between rodent research and soil and water (pathways for fleas causing plague), South ­ South collaboration involving rodents and soil science, development of joint leaflets (e.g. conservation using canopy deals with the outbreaks of rats) for the benefit of farmers

Financial management

Comments on the comparison between the initial partner programme budget, and the rate of actual expenditure considering:

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Overall expenditure

Generally the budget was used according to the annual plan with very little under- or over-spending. A few times we had a small under-spending due to the system rule that budgets cannot be shifted to the next year. Shifts between budget lines and projects We only had to ask once for a shift going beyond the 15 % rule. Expenditure in the North versus the South Most funds (about 70 % of the budget annually) were sent directly to the South. When funds were budgeted for use in the North, they were used for the benefit of the South (scholarships, per diems and accommodation for South students and delegations visiting Flanders) also except for travel costs of the Flemish counterparts and for the Flemish coordination costs. Available resources versus programme requirements (distribution over projects, cost efficiency) During Phase II of the Programme, every Project got its commonly approved budget. For the first time, the Faculty of Science received its fair share, the highest percentage (only realised in Phase II). Second to the Faculty of Science, the Coordination Office also took a large part of the IUC funds. This is due to the fact that several items of common interest, including, but not limited to transport, vehicle maintenance, communication, etc. were funded using the coordination account. Available resources versus programme requirements The Programme requirements were planned according to the available resources. We believe the Programme was resource/cost-efficient. Manner in which the partner programme budget is aligned to the institutional budget SUA itself considers the IUC budget as an additional opportunity to realise their mission and vision. The quality of resource utilisation (monitoring, leveraging, alignment to institutional budget or external opportunities etc.) The Programme worked smoothly, capturing any opportunities that availed themselves, including linking with other financial donors. No real problems showed up and the programme succeeded in fulfilling its goals in line with the mission and vision of SUA.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Considering the above, when reviewing the financial management, how did the group assess strengths and weaknesses of the current status of financial management taking into account, among others, the issues list below? Please explain. 1 = very strong 2 = strong; 3 = neutral; 4 = weak 5 = very weak

Score (1 to 5)

Phase i Adherence to agreed upon procedures (agreement, advice etc.) 3 Phase ii 1 in the beginning (Phase i), the system (vlir) rules and regulations were not clear. Some times they were in Flemish, a language most partners in the South do not understand. they were also changing a lot even during programme implementation. except for a few instances when budgeting was not properly done (once, in scholarships), budgets were generally well adhered to during Phase ii. although we sometimes did not agree, consultations always led to amicable solutions. because of the lack of clear financial guidelines especially during in Phase i, some problems showed up. although there is financial regulations are stringent, the rules are more or less clearer in Phase ii than they were during Phase i the main problem is that the some of the regulations are not in line with local (Sua) regulations, which makes it difficult to implement sometimes Programme level procedures were very transparent and clear during Phase ii since both the coordinators and Project leaders were conversant with what was taking place. very good interpersonal relations during Phase ii.

Short explanation

Adherence to planning and budgets

2

1

Quality of consultation in case of deviation and/or rejected expenses

3

2

Programme wide understanding of relevant definitions (budget lines, scholar ship costs etc.)

3

1

Clarity and transparency of programme level procedures

2

1

Willingness to accommodate one another ...

2

1

Overall management

When reviewing the overall programme management, what would the group consider to the strengths and weaknesses of the current status of programme management? 1 = very strong 2 = strong; 3 = neutral; 4 = weak 5 = very weak

Score (1 to 5)

Communication, monitoring and critical review Planning and budgeting Flexibility and pragmatism Consultation and participation Result tracking Academic standards 1 1 1 1 2 1 we feel the Programme was a bit too much activity-oriented and not enough output-oriented due to iuc regulations high academic standards were maintained

Short explanation

the programme went smoothly although we feel that there was a bit too much micro-management. Planning and budgeting were done together and adhered to. a few times we had `to fly by the seats of our pants'.

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Outlook and recommendations

How would the group of project leaders define the Programme's further role in terms of building upon the IUC partner programmes? Please reflect on issues such as leadership, meetings etc. The group considers the build-up of contacts being of value. Therefore they have decided to continue with meetings, academic contacts and collaboration in the framework of other projects (other donors) Please formulate your three main recommendations to VLIR-UOS in terms of improving the effectiveness of the IUC programme: (most important) Be more result-oriented Consider the local rules and regulations Don't change the rules in the course of the implementation

annex xv : Financial support provided for equipment (investments) to the Sua-vlir uoS Programme

Year

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 total

Total disbursed in Euros

265,205.32 150,156.10 136,390.62 71,821.05 106,957.30 11,569.87 163,322.86 94,373.29 77,296.99 45,151.00 1,122,244.00

annex xvi : Summary of financial contributions made by vlir to the Sua-vlir uoS Programme (1997 ­ 2006)

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

BUDGET ITEM 1998 32,750 2,614 0 334 923 666 0 37,287 1998 0 17,681 1,790 12,253 3,373 2,231 0 37,328 0 48,719 40,722 0 0 0 1,825 2,815.59 0 4,552 5,058.90 0 25,471 9,183.90 26,075.86 1,245.74 1,916.91 90,214 0 8,001 7,676.83 43,334.91 0 5,656 11,679.58 17,337.24 0 3,213 4,307.69 303.02 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 29,588.03 18,161.14 6,132.50 15,267.40 3,487.41 4,069.60 138.65 76,845 42,740 35,768 40,434 71,107 0 181 0 0 492.12 1,438.20 0 0 824.58 2,041.82 958.57 1,157.24 448.52 70,893 2004 6,724.89 11,714.42 6,048.59 13,692.52 3,903.89 3,661.72 45,746 0 0 177.24 1,616.68 45,086.10 0 0 0 40,842 34,765.95 26,944.34 30,206.23 22,640.50 0 1,716 10,955.99 36,887.61 1,560.76 16,720.99 20,613.92 6,833.51 767.78 2,983.70 47,920 2005 15,112.66 12,202.51 13,022.07 2,161.18 771.42 1,193.48 44,463 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

AMOUNT IN EURO 2006 eStim 23,700.00 14,001.00 total 152,714.30 165,772.88 54,047.33 1,168.00 1,289.00 6,541.17 4,293.20 3,164.68 40,158 2006 ESTIM 4,776.00 11,102.00 16,359.00 1,238.00 507.00 71,448.90 100,649.56 29,865.59 105,576.19 27,428.85 21,952.71 1,723.34 33,982 358,645.15 386,533.56

ict

1997

INVESTMENT

39,379

OPERATIONAL

89

PERSONNEL

0

SCHOLARSHIP

0

INT. TRAVEL

742

RESIDENCE

451

SHIPPING

0

total

40,661

SNAL

1997

INVESTMENT

7,727

OPERATIONAL

12,453

PERSONNEL

217

SCHOLARSHIP

327

INT. TRAVEL

3,655

RESIDENCE

6,070

SHIPPING

391

total

30,839

rodent reSearch 1998 15,176 47,974 21,322 16,816 6,108 5,362 729 113,487 1998 9,933 16,602 2,130 8,403 1,120 504 0 38,692 0 38,457 51,484 0 0 797.97 62,260 0 1,167 656.82 1,808.60 0 807 1,414.78 3,143.00 0 17,553 15,179.00 12,697.01 0 5,351 4,524.35 4,725.74 1,395.07 2,464.54 4,966.46 54,120 0 10,153 16,698.52 27,496.93 38,627.89 0 3,427 12,212.10 12,389.06 6,666.41 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 35,070.49 19,636.28 2,250.69 8,112.46 4,366.98 2,372.85 2,742.30 74,552 0 103,514 79,802 84,224 72,194 58,702 0 0 0 0 2,936.99 2,158.22 2,350.12 3,480.35 0 2,162 7,061.58 18,458.42 6,052.75 3,856.01 7,382.18 5,325.74 298.37 54,458 2005 4,704.06 28,687.03 3,142.73 2,091.19 1,878.07 298.37 40,801 31,231 29,870 2006 eStim 23,832.00 1,908.00 5,253.00 238.00 98,838.60 167,016.11 21,086.40 49,246.98 19,366.48 12,742.35 3,838.64 372,135.54 0 25,802 38,726.15 15,536.23 6,165.36 14,082.20 10,035.48 0 62,377 5,893.30 8,881.39 8,795.87 9,169.16 5,433.75 0 13,173 22,889.90 36,878.91 42,669.27 28,114.37 25,002.51 0 0 2,294.18 2,310.96 6,161.01 979.88 13,108.00 7,525.00 317.00 4,784.00 4,136.00 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 eStim 90,390.00 217,440.71 120,612.47 111,944.03 41,013.68 24,783.69 1,093.79 607,278.37

1997

INVESTMENT

65,779

OPERATIONAL

24,510

PERSONNEL

96

SCHOLARSHIP

0

INT. TRAVEL

3,607

RESIDENCE

1,193

SHIPPING

66

total

95,251

Soil & water reSearch

1997

INVESTMENT

26,825

OPERATIONAL

12,779

PERSONNEL

385

SCHOLARSHIP

0

INT. TRAVEL

1,849

RESIDENCE

959

SHIPPING

0

total

42,798

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

Food Science 14,367 16,338 3,980 5,597 2,924 4,456 0 47,661 1998 49,245 8,366 0 11,805 880 5,406 0 75,703 0 61,626 101,479 101,984 0 0 135,597 0 4,833 3,037.39 652.28 1,123.41 0 4,914 3,117.12 670.32 4,012.92 0 31,207 34,448.02 33,818.69 40,055.11 0 0 859.69 1,920.04 2,250.69 37,958.33 1,129.34 416.09 71,174 0 5,870 12,096.43 16,207.87 12,397.55 17,210.85 0 14,802 48,780.08 49,775.34 76,087.77 12,208.24 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 0 79,962 45,583 53,393 0 0 0 0 0 2005 43,006.10 8,734.64 1,789.33 47,302.01 419.60 2,147.00 1,571.28 104,969.96 2006 eStim 16,674.00 9,972.00 3,039.00 17,056.00 1,121.00 128.00 250.00 48,240.00 0 1,203 0 0 3,166.82 0 48,295 19,804.25 22,890.40 0 9,359 5,118.75 4,080.58 0 13,920 9,092.53 6,419.72 0 7,186 11,567.50 16,835.92 -

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

16,007.00 50,463.13 44,371.01 18,457.11 73,695.82 3,680.71 6,167.10 196,834.90

INVESTMENT

17,342

OPERATIONAL

5,021

PERSONNEL

0

SCHOLARSHIP

0

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

INT. TRAVEL

757

RESIDENCE

509

SHIPPING

0

total

23,629

FoS

1997

INVESTMENT

23,522

284,326.29 85,592.27 8,999.06 219,831.14 17,963.03 19,341.17 1,821.28 637,874.24

OPERATIONAL

10,944

PERSONNEL

0

SCHOLARSHIP

0

INT. TRAVEL

2,369

RESIDENCE

2,251

SHIPPING

0

total

39,086

agribuSineSS 20,673 8,652 0 19,172 0 0 717 49,214 1998 9,287 22,322 41,650 0 4,238 6,453 38,268 122,218 521,590

a

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 554,783 553,112 541,350 132,013 128,130 112,233 605,643.52 44,411 50,828.20 51,547. 50 6,677 4,404.71 4,915.38 6,574 4,457.23 9,409.68 0 36.37 3,830.75 4,874.85 8,409.78 44,047.07 107,584 517,447.31 0 11,026.88 7,016.34 4,143.12 26,234 38,421.50 38,011.93 34,346.14 48,117 18,991.40 1,296.20 7,932.03 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 26,782.63 25,168.86 4,421.28 11,526.66 7,221.18 37,892.28 113,013 434,079.72 46,081 58,383 60,901 0 0 295 691 1,486.01 970 824.58 2,468.65 0 2005 15,855.29 27,732.64 4,805.31 4,890.36 4,213.45 31,502.65 89,000 381,612.24 2006 eStim 29,686.00 5,598.00 72.00 8,104.00 6,959.00 7,967.0 58,386 241,867.00 32,391 29,590.44 18,835.12 0 1,356.15 829.35 10,963 16,967.50 19,577.93 772 9,643.85 17,703.46 -

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

16,007.00 53,777.72 38,088.08 1,356.15 86,997.81 6,234.13 6,445.41 1,011.24 193,910.54

INVESTMENT

22,689

OPERATIONAL

1,505

PERSONNEL

0

SCHOLARSHIP

5,844

INT. TRAVEL

4,439

RESIDENCE

5,755

SHIPPING

0

total

40,232

coordination (Pcu + ua)c

1997

INVESTMENT

64,599

191,564.25 215,151.41 90,424.82 3,902.75 48,244.72 50,005.42 295,905.90 895,199.27 4,808,838.10

OPERATIONAL

11,240

PERSONNEL

18,780

SCHOLARSHIP

0

INT. TRAVEL

3,580

RESIDENCE

5,667

ADMINISTRATION

40,990

total

144,856

grand total

457,352

b

model ib totalS

453,498

517,195

554,783

528,162

560,211

567,529.00

517,447.00

474,577.00

397,151.00

262,673.00

4,833,226.00

a

Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

b

Figures of expenditure were uncertain except for the total expenditure due to problems related to book-keeping and reconciliation of macro vs hogra systems. Figures kindly provided by Programme coordinator Professor luc d'haese, university of antwerp following adjustment. c total Programme coordination costs (Sua + ua)

Publisher: Flemish Interuniversity Council, University Cooperation for Development (VLIR-UOS) Design: www.cibe-cvo.be, Gent Registration: D/2008/10.960/7

This document is printed on 100 % post-consumer recycled paper, without the use of whitening agents.

VLIR {Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad} UOS {Universitaire Ontwikkelingssamenwerking} Bolwerksquare 1a ~ 1050 Brussels ~ Belgium T (32) (2) 289 05 50 F (32) (2) 514 72 77 www.vliruos.be [email protected]

Information

172 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

158007


Notice: fwrite(): send of 212 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531