SUA - Sokoine University of Agri

Document Sample
SUA - Sokoine University of Agri Powered By Docstoc
					                                                  Final Evaluation of
                                                  the IUC partnership
                                                  with
                                                  Sokoine University of
                IUC Programme
Institutional University Cooperation




                                                  Agriculture (SUA)
                                                  Tanzania




                                       Sinclair H.Mantell
                                       Okwach Abagi
                                       May 2008
Acronyms and abbreviations


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




            Table of contents


            Foreword                                                                                                        3

            executive Summary                                                                                               5

          1. tanzania: itS national Policy Framework and PrioritieS                                                        29

         2. Sokoine univerSity oF agriculture (Sua)                                                                        33

         3. the vlir univerSity Partner Programme (vlir-uoS)                                                               37

         4. elaboration oF the Sua-vlir PartnerShiP                                                                       43
            Programme structure Phase I                                                                                   44
            Programme structure Phase II                                                                                  45
            Objectives of Phase I                                                                                         46
            Logframes Phase II                                                                                            46

         5. termS oF reFerence For the Final evaluation                                                                    47

         6. evaluation methodology and Procedure                                                                           49

          7. evaluation FindingS                                                                                           51
             Individual Project Performance                                                                                51
             Qualitative assessment of each project                                                                        72
             Programme Performance                                                                                         77
             Cross cutting issues                                                                                          79

         8. aSSeSSment oF Sua Programme management                                                                         81

         9. aSSeSSment oF the univerSity PartnerShiP                                                                      85
            Cooperation                                                                                                   85
            Coordination                                                                                                  87

        10. budgetary iSSueS                                                                                               91

         11. overall Programme aSSeSSment                                                                                  99

        12. concluSionS                                                                                                   101

        13. recommendationS                                                                                               103
            At the Project Level                                                                                          103
            At the Programme Level                                                                                        105
            At the VLIR-UOS Secretariat level                                                                             105

        14. documentS conSulted                                                                                           111

            annexeS                                                                                                       113
            Annex I :        Schedule of interviews and related activities during in-country mission in Tanzania          114
            Annex II :       Participants at the discussions between Evaluation Commission and Flemish Project Leaders
                             on 3/02/08 at Oasis Hotel                                                                    116
            Annex   III :    Nomenclature used within the VLIR-UOS Inter-University Partnership Programme                 116
            Annex   IV :     Interview formats – types of questions asked                                                 117
            Annex   V:       Programme cycle and the level of responsibilities during the different programme phases      118
            Annex   VI :     SUA undergraduate enrolment by specialization and gender (1996/97-2005/06)                   118
            Annex   VII :    Formulation of SUA-VLIR Programme Phases I and II in 2001                                    119
            Annex   VIII :   Final Evaluation Criteria used by Evaluation Commission                                      121
            Annex   IX :     Outline log frame analyses of five projects conducted during Phase II                        124
            Annex   X:       Specific outputs from the SUA projects                                                       127
            Annex   XI :     Collective Self Assessment from Northern Stakeholders in the SUA-VLIR Programme              150
            Annex   XII :    Collective Northern Stakeholder view of management of the IUC programme (Phase I and II)     154
            Annex   XIII :   Southern Stakeholder assessment of overall management of the SUA-VLIR Programme              156
            Annex   XIV :    Southern Stakeholder assessment of the impact of the SUA-VLIR Programme                      160
            Annex   XV :     Financial support provided for equipment (investments) to the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme         164
            Annex   XVI :    Summary of financial contribution made by VLIR to the SUA-VLIR UOS Programme (1997 – 2006)   165
                                                                                        Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




Tables


Table 1     SUA Academic Courses and Awards                                                                    34
Table 2     Nature and Level of Achievement (by Project) as at Sept. 2001 (end of Phase I)
            as compared to initial targets                                                                     51
Table   3   Key Result Areas (1-7) of the SUA-VLIR Programme                                                   66
Table   4   Actual allocation vs. initial budget, actual and normative share of total (1997-2000)              70
Table   5   Capacity Building Recipients of the SUA-VLIR Programme                                             79
Table   6   Cooperation Dynamics of the different projects in the SUA-VLIR Programme                           92
Table   7   Summary of scores attributed by teams in the North on the effects of the
            VLIR UOS Programme on their own academic activities                                              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 activi-
                 ties 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 stake-
                 holders 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 VLIR-

                 UOS 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 VLIR-
            UOS 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: sinclair.mantell@nakhlatec.se
                                                                     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: okwach.abagi@ownresearch.org or abagiown06@yahoo.com

                                                                        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, tour-
            ism and hydropower production, agriculture is a leading sector of the economy and ac-
            counts 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 coun-
            try, 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 postgradu-
ate students is 394. The gender gap between males and females enrolled at the univer-
sity: 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 develop-
ment 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 be-
            tween 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 tenta-
            tively 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 co-
            operation 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 as-
            signed 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, applica-

     tion, 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 mod-

     ern 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 be-
tween 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 com-
            menced 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 moun-

                  tainous 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 con-
                    text 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 follow-
       up 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 activi-
       ties 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 stake-
       holders 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 VLIR-

       UOS 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 par-
ties 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 dur-
            ing 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 coopera-
            tion 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 con-
            nectivity were up to the end of the SUA-VLIR being paid in part through the VLIR-
            UOS 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 ef-
            ficient 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 develop-
            ment at SUA and the university’s relationship with surrounding communities (ie ‘serv-
            ing 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 post-
            graduate 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 manage-
ment 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 assist-
ance 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 provid-
ing 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 dur-
ing 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 under-
            take consultancies to assist in library development in other agriculture-based institu-
            tions 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 train-
            ing, 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 compu-
            terised: 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 prob-
            lem-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 employ-
            ment 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 train-
ing courses organized by rodent control specialists. In short, the objective was to pro-
vide 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 be-
cause 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 (includ-
ing 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 laborato-
ries (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 aca-
demic 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 en-
vironment 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 con-
trol 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 de-
partmental 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 sup-
            port 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 de-
            velop, 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 in-
            comes 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 re-
            search 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 con-
            servation 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 develop-
            ment 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.

               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 genera-
tion capacity. Also it is important to note that staff of the Centre have benefited im-
mensely 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 di-
rect 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 at-
tract 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 im-
plemented. They have turned out to be among the most popular postgraduate pro-
grammes 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 scholar-
ship 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, cur-
ricula 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 ad-
ditional 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 teach-
            ing 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 pro-
            ceedings (or in book chapters) and 9 Conference Abstracts. This is a highly commend-
            able 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 un-
            dergraduates 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 pur-
            chase 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 agen-
cies, 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 pur-
chased 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, re-
search 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 man-
agement 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 capac-
ity 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 re-
vised 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, at-
tracting 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 dur-
ing 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 coordi-
nation 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 re-
            silience 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 hu-
            man 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 collabora-
            tion. 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 SUA-
            VLIR 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 SUA-
            VLIR 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 con-
            sidered 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 indi-
            cated that female academics were clearly under-represented both in the project manage-
            ment of the Programme and as direct beneficiaries (i.e. as recipients of training activi-
            ties). 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 dur-
ing 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 mem-
bers and teaching assistants worked on improving their IFS proposals. Of the 24 partici-
pants, 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 at-
tainment 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 ex-
            pectations that the Cooperation Agreement would have been signed. However, the
            Agreement was not signed until November 1997. The implementation of various activi-
            ties 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 finan-
            cial 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 consul-
            tancies in the regions.

                The Programme fulfilled a unique type of sustained funding needed where univer-
            sities 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 undoubt-
edly improved levels of student and staff training at SUA, provided essential ICT infra-
structure, 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 inter-
national 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 part-
nership 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 Inter-
University 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 develop-
ing world were evolved. Its pioneering contribution to the newer South-North univer-
sity 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-depart-
                 mental and intra-faculty linkages at SUA. The new proposal could involve another
                 university in Tanzania (so developing a multi-campus South-South-North collabo-
                 ration). 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 proac-
                 tively 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 shar-
                 ing 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 ex-
                 isting 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 complimen-
                 tary 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 initia-
                 tives like joint course development and research on cross-cutting subjects like food
                 security, global environmental change and its impacts on rural livelihoods, consul-
                 tancies 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 out-
                 standing 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 vet-
erinary 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-cut-
ting 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 col-
laborative programme. When compared with many other northern donor-mediat-
ed 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 bilat-
eral aid aimed at improving the education standards and enabling trained individu-
als 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, prevent-
ing divisions between departments and research teams is a challenge. For example,
departments which are included in a long term cooperation where the opportuni-
ties 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 sup-
portive 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 asso-
ciated 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 ap-
preciated, 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 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 com-
                 ply 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 flex-
                 ibility in the structure of an IUC Programme to encourage and support the young-
                 est departments – which are often in need of support the most – by means of incor-
                 porating 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 there-
                 fore 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 col-
                 laboration 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 un-
                 likely 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 admin-
                 istration. 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 evalua-
                 tors 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 pro-
vision of advice, mentorship and counselling for various members of projects even
outside of their own discipline. In this regard it might be worth VLIR consider-
ing 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 develop-
ment 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 interna-
tional 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 re-
searchers 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 post-
graduate 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 initia-
                 tives 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 caus-
                 ing 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 exist-
                 ing KRA criteria for the Self Assessment. These need to take better account of broad
                 categories of ‘projects’, particularly those involving service provision and staff train-
                 ing. 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 clar-
                 ity. 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 de-
                 gree 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

            Tanzania: its National Policy Framework


1
            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 na-
            tional Constitution. Since independence, Tanzanians have been ruled by four govern-
            ments: 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 ap-
            proximately 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 high-
            lands. 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, phos-
            phates, coal, gemstones, nickel, and natural gas. In addition, the country has a substan-
            tial 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 nation-
hood 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 em-
power 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 postgradu-
ate 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 uni-
versities 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 man-
agement 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 pub-
            lic 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

            Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)


2
               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 practi-
            cal 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 North-
            west 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 indi-
cated in Table 1.

                     Table 1: SUA Academic Courses and Awards
   undergraduate training                          Postgraduate training: m.Sc. and Ph.d.
   B.Sc. Agriculture (General)                     M.Sc. Agriculture Science
   B.Sc. Agronomy                                  M.Sc. Agricultural Education and Extension
   B.Sc. Home Economics and Human Nutrition        M.Sc. Agricultural Economics
   B.Sc. Horticulture                              MBA Agribusiness
   B.Sc. Animal Science                            M.Sc. Soil Science and Land Management
   B.Sc. Food Science and Technology               M.Sc. Agricultural Engineering
   B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering                  M.Sc. Tropical Animal Production
   B.Sc. Agricultural Education and Extension      M.Sc. Food Science
   B.Sc. Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness   M.Sc. Human Nutrition
   B.Sc. Forestry                                  M.Sc. Forestry
   B.Sc. Wildlife Management                       M.Sc. Wildlife Management
   B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and Management     M.Sc. Management of Natural Resources and
                                                   Sustainable Agriculture
   Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine (BVM)           Master of Veterinary Medicine (MVM)
   B.Sc. Biotechnology and Laboratory Sciences     M.Sc. Preventive Medicine (MPVM)
   B.Sc. Aquaculture                               M.Sc. Land Use Planning and Management
   B.Sc. Rural Development.                        M.Sc. Irrigation Engineering and Management
   Bachelor of Tourism and Management              MA Rural Development
   B.Sc. Computing and Information                 Ph.D. offered in most disciplines
   B.Sc. Education
   B.Sc. Range Management




    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 stu-
dents 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 encour-
            aging 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 (insti-
            tutions 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 pro-
            gramme with an aim of restructuring its teaching programmes so as to attract more stu-
            dents. 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

            The VLIR University Partner Programme (VLIR-UOS)


3
                VLIR is the acronym for Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (Flemish Inter-
            university Council) established in 1976. Its mandate is to promote dialogue and co-
            operation 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’ coopera-
            tion 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 univer-
            sities 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 con-
            sists 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 develop-
            ment 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 insti-
                  tutions 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 iden-
         tification, 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 benefi-
         ciary 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 counter-
part institutions in developing countries’.




3 Added by the Evaluation Commission to express current emphasis by VLIR on the meaning of ‘Institutional Develop-
ment’: 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 de-
            gree 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 coopera-
            tion 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 univer-
            sity 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 coordi-
                  nating 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 maxi-
       mum 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 uni-
versities 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 ben-
efit 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 part-
ner 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 universi-
ties 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 universi-
            ties 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


            Elaboration of the SUA-VLIR Partnership

4           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 attend-
            ed ‘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 col-
            laboration 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 insti-
            tutional 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 dis-
cussed 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 repre-
sentative, 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-gov-
ernmental 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 agree-
            ment, 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 ac-
            count 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 training-
            based (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, applica-

     tion, 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 develop-

     ment 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

            Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation


5
                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 coop-

                  eration activities of the partner university by:
                     - Evaluating the added value of the IUC Programme for the partner univer-
                       sity, in comparison to other ongoing donor cooperation programmes;
                ✱ To assimilate information from the self assessments and recommend a follow-

                  up 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

            Evaluation methodology and procedure


6
               The final evaluation was conducted by the external Evaluation Commission accord-
            ing 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 com-
            mission members to have detailed discussions about the respective partnerships with the
            Northern stakeholders. These discussions were planned to take place at the partner uni-
            versity 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 evalu-
            ation 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 bal-
                   anced 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 recom-
                   mendations, 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

            Evaluation Findings


7
               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 par-
            ties 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 dur-
            ing 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 ac-
            tivity 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 stimu-
            lated 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          achieved   Situation in oct. 2001
                                     reSultS
                 Project 1:          Internet installed                    70%     Limited up-to-date
                 development                                                       computers with enough
                 of Facilities       Full access to internet achieved              capacity
                 for internet        by all Departments                            Still serious lack of skilled
                                                                                   personnel at the Computer
                                     Network and communication                     Centre to properly manage
                                     through E-mail attained                       the network
                                                                                   Slow e-mail service
                                     SUA Web page developed and                    USD $3,000 per month
                                     accessible in the net                         paid through the project is
                                                                                   not sustainable
                                                            Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




Project 2:     Computerised cataloguing and       75%   Needed new and larger
Strengthen-    CD ROM data search on line in            capacity computers
ing of Snal    use at Department Level

               Equipment and technical assist-          Lack of in-house experts
               ance given to users                      on the new system

               Programme for Technical staff            The achievement of
               trained on new ICT in place.             national mandate for
               One Ph.D. student.                       agricultural library
                                                        resource was still at the
                                                        planning stage

               Computer room furnished with
               computers & software.
Project 3:     Strong research activities in      90%   An expatriate scientist
Studies on     place                                    based at SUA had been
the ecology,                                            supported by the
biodiver-                                               programme, although he
sity and                                                was no longer in post.
taxonomy of
rodents        Equipment and essential                  The only component that
               reagents and chemicals avail-            received its financial
               able for field and on station            allocation according to
               research.                                initial budget level.

               Two Ph.D. and one M.Sc.                  The component had en-
               students nearing completion              hanced capacity building,
                                                        and was now in the SUA
               Developing models for rodent             Pest Management Centre.
               outbreak and crop damage
               assessment                               The project had been
                                                        widely recognised and
               Attracted other projects:                publicised. Scientific
               APOPO & STAPLERAT(EU),                   publication output was
               book project started.                    substantial. Book project
                                                        started but not completed.
Project 4:     Strong research component in       70%   Limited research in
Soil and       soil science in place                    agricultural engineering
water                                                   compared to soil science
conservation   Social-anthropological studies
in the         done                                     Supervision and contacts
uluguru                                                 from the Flemish
mountains      Two Ph.D students nearing                counterparts
               completion
                                                        Creating positive impact,
               Strong outreach activities with          with project farmers
               farmers at the slopes of                 planning and managing
               Uluguru Mountains, with                  their own production,
               sustainable impact                       marketing and lobbying

               Equipment procured                       Works through the
                                                        established administration
                                                        structure from district to
                                                        village level. However, still
                                                        no social anthropological
                                                        studies had been done
Project 5:     Two M.Sc. Programmes in place      50%   This is a well-staffed
Postgradu-     (Food Science & Human Nutri-             Department (about 10
ate training   tion), with two students in each         Ph.D. holders)
and staff
development    One Ph.D. student in Gent                Lack of laboratory equip-
in Food        nearly completion                        ment is critical for the
Science and                                             quality of the M.Sc.
               Some laboratory equipment and            programme
human
               computers purchased
nutrition
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:          Capacity built, in terms of infra-   50%   The new Faculty was
                 Strengthen-         structure, and upgraded to the             understaffed and over-
                 ing basic           new Faculty of Science                     loaded with teaching
                 Sciences
                 unit (bSu),         Capacity has been expanded:                Laboratories were inad-
                 now the             lecture halls, laboratory equip-           equately equipped and
                 Faculty of          ment, but still very inadequate            needed urgent renovation
                                                                                and expansion
                 Science
                                     B.Sc. Environmental Sciences
                 (FoS)
                                     and Management launched with               Issues of relevance to
                                     success                                    technical assistance were
                                                                                being raised
                                     2 Ph.D.’s in Belgium, nearing
                                     completion                                 The faculty was officially
                                                                                established but still had
                                     English being taught for all               a long way to go before it
                                     1st year students                          could function efficiently
                                                                                and to maximum effect
                                     Collaboration research taking
                                     place
                 Project 7:          1 Ph.D. in Belgium                   50%   Lack of funds was affect-
                 capacity                                                       ing the achievement of the
                 building in         6 M.Sc. scholarships                       specific objective of
                 agricultural                                                   promoting Agri-business
                 economics           Curriculum has been revised,
                 & agribusi-         with the advice of the Flemish             No collaboration research
                 ness.               counterpart                                with Flemish counterparts
                                     Literature and teaching materi-            was taking place
                                     als for Agribusiness has been
                                     supplied                                   Needed more support and
                                                                                refocus of activities
                                     Lack of enough funds to boost
                                     Agri-business no collaborative
                                     research

                                     Support national network and
                                     collaboration for Agricultural
                                     Economics experts
                 Project 8:          Coordination Office established      90%   Not in the initial budget,
                 Programme                                                      but in 2002 handled one
                 Support and         Computers procured                         quarter of the total
                 coordination                                                   allocation. Coordination
                 office              Active coordination, the Coor-             office was established
                                     dinator serves as information              with 8 administrative staff
                                     centre and intermediary for all            (Coordinator, Deputy Coor-
                                     projects on SUA campus and                 dinator, 2 Accountants, 2
                                     Belgian partners                           Secretaries, 3 drivers and
                                                                                guest house attendant).
                                     Smooth coordination activity               The Unit had 3 vehicles
                                                                                and even ran a guesthouse
                                                                                to accommodate visiting
                                                                                academics

                                                                                Incidents of weak coordi-
                                                                                nation and communication
                                                                                with Bursar/DRPS report-
                                                                                ed by external auditors
                                                                       Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




                                                                    The Coordinator showed
                                                                    that he was very commit-
                                                                    ted 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 con-
nectivity were up to the end of the Programme being paid in part through the VLIR-
UOS programme. At the start of Phase II, the Programme paid 75% of the total connec-
tion 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 immedi-
ate 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 be-
low, 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 out-
            side 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 universi-
            ty’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 commu-
            nication 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 uni-
            versity 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 post-
            graduate 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 man-
agement in Lusaka, Italy and Belgium.

    On the basis of the self assessment report from this project, it is clear that the impor-
tance 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 communica-
tion (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 cam-
pus. 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 plan-
ning 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 un-
            der the SUA-VLIR Programme, the University has developed the capacity to develop
            Management Information Systems for various applications. The staff members con-
            cerned 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 develop-
            ing, 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 num-
            bers 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-the-
            Gap’, 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 at-
            tain 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 activi-
ties 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 develop-
ments 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 informa-
tion 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 consultan-
cies 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 be-
tween 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 post-
graduate 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 compu-
            terised: 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 institu-
            tions 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 databas-
            es, 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 postgrad-
            uate 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 sup-
            port 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 prob-
lems are experienced. The research undertaken was viewed as significant to develop-
ment 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 SUA-
VLIR programme, these were used strategically in a focussed manner, including ensur-
ing 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 gen-
erally problem-oriented and addresses capacity building (manpower training, equip-
ment, 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 en-
sure 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 be-
            cause 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 en-
            vironment 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 con-
            trol 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 de-
            partmental 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 be-
come 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 member-
ship 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 re-
search 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 ad-
            ditional 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 uni-
            versity 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 be-
            tween 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 au-
            thority 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 SUA-
            VLIR 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 produc-
            tivity. 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 ad-
            ditional 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 imple-
menters to attend both local and international conferences and present scientific find-
ings obtained from the study area. An accurate method for assessing soil erosion in
mountainous agricultural land slopes was developed and successfully tested. An elabo-
rate 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 conser-
vation 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 farm-
ers 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 at-
tract 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 oppor-
            tunities, 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 con-
            cerned 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 ad-
            ditional 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 teach-
            ing 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 expe-
                        riencing heavy teaching loads.

                            With its establishment in 1999, the Faculty of Sciences has made an impact on teach-
                        ing (KRA 2 scored 4 as adjudged by the self assessment). The Faculty now offers com-
                        mon 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 aver-
                        aged 20% higher than in 2001 when the mid-evaluation was carried out. There are in-
                        significant 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 undergradu-
                        ate 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           Soils         Food              Faculty            agro-econ.             mean Self
                                                         research         and           Science           of                 and                    assessment
                                                                          water                           Science            agri-business          mean Final
                                                                                                                                                    evaluation
 research                    *3           1 (1)          5 (5)            4 (4)         1 (1)             4 (4)              1 (1)                  2 (2)
                             (2)
 teaching                    +(+)         n/a (1)        4 (4)            n/a (1)       4 (4)             4 (3)              3 (3)                  4 (3)
 extension                   3 (4)        n/a (3)        4 (4)            4 (4)         1 (2)             1 (1)              2 (2)                  3 (3)
 management                  3 (4)        n/a (4)        3 (3)            3 (3)         4 (3)             4 (3)              3 (3)                  3 (3)
 human resource              5 (4)        5 (4)          5 (5)            5 (4)         4 (2)             4 (3)              1 (1)                  4 (3)
 dev.
 infrastructure              4 (4)        4 (4)          4 (4)            5 (3)         4 (3)             4 (3)              1 (1)                  4 (3)
 management
 mobilisation                5 (3)        n/a (3)        4 (4)            n/a (3)       4 (2)             4 (3)              2 (2)                  4 (3)

*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 in-
            terviewing procedures were completed. The outputs were rated overall as ‘good’ to ‘ex-
            cellent’ 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 renova-
            tion 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 suc-
            cessful 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 limi-
            tations 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 capac-
ity 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 re-
search 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 aca-
demic 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 entrepreneur-
            ship. 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 re-
            quired 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 admin-
            istrative 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 fund-
            ing 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 weak-
nesses. 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                          actual/                    Spending/                   % budget
                                                budget %                   total %                     allocated
      Project 1: internet                       53                         7.9                         10
      Project 2: library                        99                         8.0                         10
      Project 3: rodent                         103                        19.9                        16
      Project 4: Soil & water                   62                         7.9                         10
      Project 5: Food Science                   70                         8.2                         10
      Project 6: Faculty of Science             42                         12.5                        24
      Project 7: agric. economics               55                         8.5                         10
      and agri-business
      Project 8: Sua Programme co-              b
                                                    n/a                    27                          10
      ordination unit
      total                                                                100                         100

  a
      adapted from mid-term evaluation report (vlir 2001b)
  b
      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 SUA-
       VLIR 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 stake-
       holders 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 commu-
                     nication 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 correspond-
                     ence 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 oppor-
                     tunity 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 im-
            provements 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 opera-
            tions 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 paren-
thesis). 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 re-
lated 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 equip-
ment 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 assist-
ance 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 com-
puters 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 lo-
            cal Morogoro community during SUA’s own extracurricular computer education pro-
            grammes 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 sup-
            porting 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 in-
            corporating libraries in other higher educational establishments. The SNAL computeri-
            sation 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 manage-
            ment 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 exem-
            plary 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 coor-
            dinated, 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 interna-
tional 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 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.

    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 di-
rect 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 bal-
ance 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 depart-
ments 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 chal-
lenges. 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 demonstra-
            tion 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 reli-
            ance 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 devel-
            oped successfully in partnership with KUL as a direct result of VLIR-UOS collabora-
            tion. 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 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 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 ac-
            tivities, 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. schol-
arships 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 teach-
ing library on the SMC. The VLIR programme has therefore contributed to the capac-
ity 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 equip-
ment purchased with VLIR funds have enhanced the teaching experiences of staff and
students, although severe limitations in teaching space and in general laboratory equip-
ment 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 academ-
ic 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 agricul-
tural 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 sustain-
ability of SUA academic programmes and contributed to capacity building. Courses
were revised and strengthened under the collaborative support and academic interac-
tions 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 stakehold-
ers 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 evalua-
            tion 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 spe-
            cial 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 origi-
            nal 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 ini-
            tiative. SUA/UA Coordination was generall effective but efficiency of the SUA-VLIR
            Programme has been exacerbated by several factors such as deployment of unclear man-
            agement 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 ru-
ral 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 oppor-
tunity 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 liveli-
hood 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 improv-
ing 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 suc-
cessfully 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                           ict             Snal            rodent                  Soils and               Faculty of
                                                                               research                water                   Science
                 research                      **n/c?          n/c?            1                       1                       n/c
                 teaching                      *n/c            n/c             n/a?                    3                       n/c
                 extension                     3               n/c             n/a?                    1                       n/c
                 management                    n/c?            n/c             n/a?                    4                       n/c
                 human resource                1               n/c?            n/c?                    2                       1
                 dev.
                 infrastructure                n/c?            n/c?            n/c?                    2                       1
                 management
                 mobilisation                  n/c?            n/c?            n/c?                    3                       n/c
                 other                         n/c?            n/c?            n/c?                    2                       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 hu-
            man 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 collabora-
            tion. 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 at-
            tracting 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 build-
            ing 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 interna-
            tional / 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 consid-
            ered 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 SUA-
VLIR 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 wel-
come this kind of opportunity, especially if other parts of the SUA campus could ben-
efit 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

            Assessment of SUA Programme Management


8
                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 con-
            sidered 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 adminis-
            trative capacity of SUA to handle externally funded programmes had weaknesses. With
            assistance from NORAD, the donor coordinating unit DRPGS was strengthened mak-
            ing 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, dur-
            ing early Phase I particularly, suggested to SUA stakeholders that the Flemish coordina-
            tor tended to assume the upper hand in financial matters, posing as it were as the ‘inter-
            preter’ 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 dia-
logue 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 mem-
bers. 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 ac-
counting software being used at different institutions). This made it difficult to imple-
ment 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 indi-
cated that female academics were clearly under-represented both in the project manage-
ment of the Programme and as direct beneficiaries (i.e. as recipients of training activi-
ties). 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 contribu-
tion to raising the opportunities available to female academic and technical staff mem-
bers 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 objec-
                     tives 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 dur-
            ing 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 collabora-
            tion 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 mem-
            bers and teaching assistants worked on improving their IFS proposals. Of the 24 partici-
            pants, 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 pre-
            sented 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 presen-
            tation in Section 14, specifically under Recommendations to the VLIR Secretariat.
Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership
Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

                                                                                                       CONTENTS

            Assessment of the University Partnership


9
               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 aca-
            demic activities within a single university (leading possibly to new research opportuni-
            ties 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 poten-
            tial 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 com-
            munities 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 gov-
ernment and other development partners to offer technical support to institutions inter-
ested 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 out-
breaks 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 dem-
onstrated 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 run-
off 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 aca-
demic 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 link-
age 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 fi-
            nancial 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 pro-
            gramme) 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 op-
            erational 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 (par-
            ticularly 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 be-
tween 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 pro-
posal 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 pro-
ceeded in the main smoothly. In the opinion of the Evaluation Commission, the sup-
port 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 coopera-
tion 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 reward-
ing 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 inter-
            actions with fellow academicians) has helped to strengthen the involvement and stake-
            holder ownership of the SUA-VLIR Programme in both the North and South com-
            ponents 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 assess-
            ment 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 defi-
            nite 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 collabora-
            tors 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 jeop-
            ardised totally. Furthermore, the support provided to the Programme by the Flemish
            counterparts in most cases was considered by stakeholders interviewed to have invigor-
            ated 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

             Budgetary Issues


10
                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 pro-
                   gramme 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 al-
                   located 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, af-
             ter 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 devia-
             tions 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            Soils          Faculty              mean value of
                                                                                                 research          and            of                   assessment
                                                                                                                   water          Science              and mean ec
                                                                                                                                                       score
 understanding, and adherence to agreed plans                      3 (4)a          3 (4)         4 (5)             4 (4)          Not                  4 (4)
                                                                                                                                  provided (3)
 Quality of                                                        4 (3)           3 (4)         4 (5)             4 (3)          Not                  4 (3)
 communication                                                                                                                    provided (2)
 involvement in Programme and Project levels:                      5 (4)           4 (3)         4 (5)             4 (4)          Not                  4 (4)
 vision, development, planning, budgeting and                                                                                     provided (2)
 reporting
 academic interest and commitment (collaboration                   5 (3)           n/a (3)       5 (5)             4 (4)          Not                  5 (3)
 beyond PP, personal commitment)                                                                                                  provided (2)
 Scope of cooperation (teams, attention to institu-                5 (5)           4 (3)         4 (5)             4 (4)          Not                  4 (4)
 tional environment, active sourcing of expertise)                                                                                provided (1)
 opening up international networking                               4 (5)           4 (3)         5 (5)             4 (3)          Not                  4 (4)
                                                                                                                                  provided (2)

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$675 K after deduction of adminis-
                                  trative costs. At that time, the equivalent of this was around 23 million BEF.
                                  Since 1997, the value of the BEF compared to the US$ 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 in-
                                  dividual 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 aver-
                                  aged 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 oth-
                                  ers), 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 resent-
                     ment 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 where-
                     as 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 fis-
                     cal 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 dis-


            10 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 finan-
cial 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 fol-
lowed 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 accommo-
        dated 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 offi-
        cial 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 adminis-
        trative costs, although 5% total VLIR funds received were automatically attrib-
        uted 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 an-
            nual 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 an-
            nual 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 ex-
            penditure 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 manage-
            ment in 2001 that the new incoming Flemish coordinator would act in an expeditious
            fashion to eradicate the mistrust and misunderstandings between colleagues and part-
            ner 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 bring-
            ing 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 in-
            cluded 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 ad-
            equate management capacity to run the Programme (otherwise the Programme would
            never have been accepted in the first place since an extensive review is normally under-
            taken 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 stand-
still 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 pres-
sure 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 deter-
mined 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 book-
keeping 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 apportion-
ment 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 fre-
quency 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 disburse-
ments 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 stud-
            ies 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 com-
            mon 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

            Overall Programme Assessment


1
1
                Outline assessments and points of view of the overall management of the SUA-
            VLIR Programme from a Northern Stakeholder and a Southern Stakeholder perspec-
            tive 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 consul-
            tancies in the regions (see Recommendations Section 13).

                The Programme fulfilled a unique type of sustained funding needed where univer-
            sities 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 objec-
                   tives 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 dem-
                   onstrate 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 per-
                   sonal 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            Faculty
                                                                                                                                                        and             of
                                                                                                                                                        water           Science
    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                         3           3           a
                                                                                                                                        1               1               3
    research unit
    active involvement in development cooperation among the academic staff in your unit                        4           3           2                2               2
    improvement in reputation and standing of your research unit in the faculty, institute or                  2           3           1                3               3
    at international level, eg. positive appreciation in terms of internationalisation, etc)
    collaboration with other universities in Flanders                                                          3           3           2                1               3
    improvement in international networking and linkage ability of your research unit                          4           3           1                2               3
    increase in income generating potential of your research unit (research funds or                           4           3           1                3               3
    consultancies)
    assess the academic impact of the iuc Project
    curriculum offered in belgium (quantity and quality), eg new courses, revised curricula, etc               2           4           4                n/a             4
    contribution to the knowledge base concerning the project topic at the level of your                       4           4           2                2               3
    research unit
    ability to publish regarding the topic concerned                                                           4           4           1                2               3
    ability to attend and contribute to conferences regarding the topic concerned                              4           3           1                2               3
    ability to use linkages in the South to access further funding for research                                4           4           1                3               2
    ability to attract foreign Ph.d. scholars in this field                                                    3           3           2                2               2

    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                     1           3           2                1               1
    and resources to host visits
    relations with superiors (dean), eg in view of above mentioned in 3.1                                      3           3           1                3               1
    extent to which the implementation of the Project is having an influence on your other                     3           3           3                2               3
    assignments at the institute (teaching, management tasks, research, etc)
    For your academic career                                                                                   3           3           1                3               3
    For your academic recognition at your institute (the institute uses your international                     3           3           2                3               3
    contacts, knowledge etc)
    accessibility to, or membership of decision making bodies at national level (ngo’s,                        2           3           3                2               2
    governing bodies)
    accessibility to, or membership of decision making bodies at international level (ngo’s,                   2           3           2                3               2
    universities, un or other international organisations, international research centres, etc)

a
 Figures underlined indicate that stakeholders considered that there were substantial beneficial effects of participation in the Sua-vlir initiative. in a few cases (shaded num-
bers) 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

             Conclusions


12
                 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 lead-
             ers 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 facili-
             ties, 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 uni-
             versity education in developing countries through the establishment of a durable partnership be-
             tween 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 com-
             ponents) 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 con-
             cerned and that appropriate changes to procedures had been made to accommodate the
             recommendations. Not implemented was the production of a regular SUA-VLIR news-
             letter 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 accom-
             plished 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 SUA-
VLIR Programme, provides maximum support for the development of the trainee sci-
entist 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 inves-
tigations of applied development significance and relevance can not be overestimated.
The involvement of Flemish academics with special interests in the challenges of car-
rying 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 Inter-
University 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 develop-
ing world were evolved. Its pioneering contribution to the newer South-North univer-
sity partnership programmes should not therefore go unrecognised.
 Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership

                                                                                                          CONTENTS

             Recommendations


13
                 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 col-
             leagues 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 ma-
             jor 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 inter-
             departmental 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 pos-
             sibly be one of the ‘younger’ newly formed university establishments pursuing agricul-
             ture 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 ag-
             riculture, 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 ini-
             tiative 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 collec-
             tively in a strategic manner to attract and carry out more national, regional and interna-
             tional 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 lo-
             cal 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 exist-
ing academic activities initiated under the VLIR-UOS Partnership Programme. This
activity could reduce SUA’s current reliance and dependency on direct aid from inter-
national 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 meet-
ings 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 fundamen-
tal 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 en-
            vironmental 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 exper-
            tise 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 natu-
            ral 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 develop-
            ing a truly worthwhile and valuable university collaborative programme. When com-
            pared 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 col-
laboration 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 exclu-
sion 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 dis-
tributed 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 be-
comes 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 regu-
lations 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 advan-
            tages 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 uni-
            versities 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 flex-
            ibility 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 combina-
            tion 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 mu-
tual 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 gen-
eration 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 ini-
tiatives 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 struc-
            ture 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 cur-
            rent 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 per-
            severance 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 success-
            ful 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

             Documents consulted


14
            Jamhuri ya muungano            Hotuba ya Waziri wa Sayansi, Teknolojia and Elimu ya Juu Wakati wa Kuwasilisha
            wa tanzania (2001):            Bungeni Makadirio ya Matumizi ya Fedha kwa Mwaka 2001/2002.
            nuFFic (2000):                 Evaluation of the NUFU programme – Final Report, Royal Ministry of Foreign
                                           Affairs, Oslo June 2000
           Pricewaterhouse                 Final Audit Findings Report. External Audit of VLIR funded IUC Programme at
           coopers (2001):                 Sokoine University of Agriculture 1997 – 2000. Dar es Salaam, October 2001.
            Soetens, e. (2000):            Mathematics Part 1: Algebra
            Sua (1996):                    Report on The first Conference on Institutional University Cooperation with
                                           Counterpart Institutions, 16-24 September 1996, Brussels, Belgium.
            Sua (1999):                    Faculty of Science: Profile of a New Born. Morogoro: SUA.
            Sua (2000):                    Prospectus - The Official guide 2000/2001
            Sua (2001a):                   Corporate Strategic Plan to the Year 2005 and Beyond.
            Sua (2001b):                   Faculty of Science Semester Curriculum for B.Sc. Environmental Sciences and
                                           Management, July 2001
            Sua (2001c):                   Faculty of Science Position Paper for VLIR Review Mission
            Sua (2001d):                   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 Conserva-
                                           tion and Veterinary Medicine.
            Sua (2001e)                    Work Plans for Implementation of Corporate Strategic Plan to the year 2005.
                                           Morogoro: SUA.
            Sua (2006)                     First Annual Meeting of the PANTIL Programme 11th October, 2006
            gurt (1995)                    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.
            gurt (1998a)                   The National Poverty Eradication Strategy. Dar-es-Salaam: Government Printer.
            gurt (1998b)                   The Tanzania Vision 2025. Dar-es-Salaam: Planning Commision.
            gurt (1999)                    National Higher Education Policy. Dar-es-Salaam: Ministry of Science, Technol-
                                           ogy and Higher Education.
            gurt (2001)                    Some Basic Statistics on Higher Learning Institutions in Tanzania 1996/97 –
                                           2000/2001. Dar-es-Salaam: Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education.
            vlir (1998):                   Annotated Budget Structure
            vlir (2001a):                  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(2001b):                   VLIR Institutional University Cooperation Programme. Mid-term Evaluation.
                                           64pp.
            vlir (2001c):                  VLIR Self-Assessment Report for the Peer Review of one specific component
            vlir (2001d):                  Evaluation methodology as developed by the four evaluation commissions on
                                           25-27 June 2001
            vlir-iFS-Sua (2007)            Report on VLIR-IFS-SUA Workshop on Scientific Proposal Writing
            world bank (2001):             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.
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        Time (h)        Event                                     Place                  Person
monday      08:00 – 08:30   Mission preparation – discussion of the   New Africa Hotel,      P.W. Mtakwa, S. Mantell and O. Abagi.
28/01/’08                   programme by the Eval. and Co-ord         Dar es Salaam

            09:00 – 09:30   Discussion with Embassy staff             Embassy of Belgium     Herman Boonen, Counsellor for International
                                                                                             Cooperation

            09:45 – 10:30   Discussion with NORAD staff               NORAD Offices          Iver Jorgensen, Agricultural Development
                                                                                             Officer

            10:45 – 11:30   Discussions with JICA                     JICA Offices           JICA (IDO) contacted, but no discussion took
                                                                                             place.

            11:45 – 12:30   Discussions with DANIDA                   DANIDA Offices         Christian Kirstensson



            12:45 – 13:45   LUNCH BREAK                               New Africa Hotel

            14:00 – 14.45   Ministry of Higher Education, Science     MHEST                  MHEST officials contacted, but not available for
                            & Technology                                                     discussions.

                            Discussions with Programme
            15:00 – 17:30   Coordinator Dr P. Mtakwa                  USAID Offices          USAID contacted but no opportunity for
                                                                                             discussion.
                                                                      New Africa Hotel       General discussions on SUA-VLIR Programme
tuesday     06:00 – 10:00   Travel from Dar to Morogoro; Check in     In transit, Morogoro   Evaluators and Programme Coordinator.
29/01/’08                   Hotel Oasis

                            Working Lunch with SUA stakeholders
            12:00 – 13:30                                             SUASA Club             Prof. R.H. Makundi- Rodent Research
                                                                                             Prof. M. Kilasara - Soil & Water
                                                                                             Mr. F.W. Dulle - SNAL Mr. H. George ( ICT
                            Discussions with Coordination Office                             Representative), Dr. Y. Muzanila (Faculty of
                            staff                                                            Science), Dr. P.W. Mtakwa

            14:00 – 14:30                                             Hotel Oasis

            14:30 – 16:45   Courtesy call to SUA Management           VC’s office            Prof. G.C. Monela, Vice Chancellor – SAU.

            17:00 – 17:30   Discussion with SNAL staff; Visit SNAL    SNAL                   F.W. Dulle – Project leader.
                            facilities both at MC and SMC             Library Common
                                                                      Room, SMC

                            Discuss the day’s events with Co-ord. &   Coordination office    Dr. P. Mtakwa – Coordinator.
                            Deputy Co-ord.
wednesday   08:30 – 09:30   National Rodent Control Centre (NRCC)     Outside SUA Main       Mrs. V. Ngowo, Officer-in-charge
30/01/’08                                                             Gate
            09:45 -10:45    SUA Centre for Sustainable Rural                                 Prof. D. Rutatora - Director; Mr. Stephen
                            Development (SCSRD)                       SCSRD Meeting Room     Nindi- Head Resource Management.

            11:00 – 13:00   Discussion with ICT staff                 SUASA Club             Dr. S. D. Tumbo – Director; W. R. Ballegu –
                                                                                             Associates Director;
            13:00 – 14:00   LUNCH BREAK
                                                                                             Informal meeting with Food Science staff
wednesday   14:00 – 15:00   African Seed Health Centre (ASHC)         ASHC Meeting Room      ASHC Coordinator contacted, but not available
30/01/’08                                                                                    for discussion.
            15:00 – 16:00   Directorate of Research and Post          DRPGS Office           Prof. J. A. Matovelo - Director
                            Graduate Studies (DRPGS)

            16:30 -17:30    Discuss the day’s & the next day’s        Hotel Oasis            Evaluators & Coordinator
                            schedule
Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




 thursday      08:30 – 10:30      Soil and Water Project (S&W)               Soil Science Library      Prof. Kilasara (Project leader); Prof. Tarimo,
 31/01/’08                        (Project 4)                                                          Prof. L.L. Lulandala, Prof. BM Msanya,
                                                                                                       Dr. D. Kimaro, Dr. P.W.Mtakwa

               10:30 – 11:00      Visit to Head of Department Soil                                     Prof. Msaky (Head of Soil Sciences
                                  Science                                                              Department)

               14:30 – 16:30      Pest Management Research (PMR)             Pest Management           Prof. R.H. Makundi – Project leader; team
                                  (Project 3)                                Centre                    members: Prof. Kilonzo, Prof. Machangu, Dr. A.
                                                                                                       W. Masawe, Dr. Mulungu.

               17:00 – 17:30      Discuss the day’s & the next day’s         Hotel Oasis               Evaluators & Coordinator
                                  schedule
 Friday        08:00 – 10:00      APOPO                                      APOPO Office, Mine        Bart Weetjens – Founder & Director; Prof. R.
 01/02/’08                                                                   Fields, Tuberculosis      Machangu – SUA APOPO Coordinator, and Ms.
                                                                             laboratory                Judith Karue.

               10:10 – 10:30      Tea break                                  Coordination Office       Dr P.W.Mtakwa

               11:00 – 13:00      Faculty of Science (FoS) (Project 5)       Dean’s Office, FoS        Dr. Y.C. Muzanila – Dean,
                                                                                                       Dr. G.K. Karugila – Head Dept. of
                                                                                                       Biometry&Mathematics.
                                                                                                       Informal meeting with Agricultural Economics
                                                                                                       staff
               13.00 – 14.30      Lunch                                      SUASA                     Evaluators and ALL stakeholders
 Saturday      09:00 – 16:00      Draft report Writing                       Hotel Oasis               Evaluators
 02/02/’08
               16:00 16:30        Discuss the week’s events and next         Hotel Oasis               Evaluators & Coordinator.
                                  day’s schedule
 Sunday        09:00 – 14:00      Draft report Writing                       Hotel Oasis               Evaluators
 03/02/’08
               14:00 – 16:00      Discussion with Flemish Project            Hotel Oasis               Evaluators, Flemish Project Leaders, VLIR-UOS
                                  Leaders (FPLs) See Annex ii.                                         team and DGDC representatives
 monday        Whole Day          Draft Report Writing                       Hotel Oasis               Evaluators
 04/02/’08
 tuesday       12:00 – 13:00      Provide Feedback to Project Leaders        ICE Conference Room,      Evaluators and Project Leaders SUA and
 05/02/’08                        (Local and Flemish) and Project            SUA.                      Flemish team
                                  Coordinators (Local and Flemish)
 wednesday     09:00 – 12:00      External Evaluation Team leaves for        Hotel Oasis, Transit      Evaluators
 06/02/’08                        Dar es Salaam en-route to Nairobi and
                                  Stockholm


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                      Affiliation                                            Role in VLIR-UOS
Paul Tobback              Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)                    Project Leader: Food & Nutrition during Phase I
Jean Poesen               Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)                    Project Team Member, Soil & Water Project
Anne Van Malderghem       Department of Development Cooperation (Government of   Follow-up VLIR programmes
                          Belgium)
Laurent Martens           University of Ghent (UG)                               Team Leader Eco-agriculture and Agri-business project
                                                                                 during Phase I
Paul Nieuwenhuysen        Vrije Universiteit Brussel (retired)                   Project Leader, SNAL project.
Herwig Leirs              University of Antwerp (UA)                             Project Leader, Rodent Project
Josef (“Seppe”) Deckers   Catholic University of Leuven (CUL)                    Project Leader, Soil & Water
Luc D’Haese               University of Antwerp (UA)                             Programme Coordinator in the North (2001 – present)
Dirk Callebaut            University of Antwerp (retired)                        Coordinator ) and Project Leader, Faculty of Science
                                                                                 Project (1997 – 2001)
Marie-Anne Fivez          University of Antwerp (UA)                             ICOS University of Antwerp (UA)
Kristien Verbrugghen      VLIR-UOS Secretariat                                   Previously Programme Officer IUC; Now Director, VLIR
Françoise De Cupere       VLIR-UOS Secretariat                                   Programme Officer, IUC
An Vermeesch              University of Antwerp (UA)                             IUC Accountant, University of Antwerp
Walter Decleir            University of Antwerp (retired)                        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 uni-
                   versity 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 VLIR-
                     UOS 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 vlir-
          uoS scheme

 Phase                     Activities                     Actors            Outputs
 Programming               Definition policy framework    VLIR-UOS/DGDC     Typology of fundable
                           Broad outlines of partner/                       projects
                           programme types and                              Conditions for acceptance
                           guidelines for elaboration
 identification            Elaboration of programme/      PARTNER           Preliminary proposals
                           project idea                   UNIVERSITY        submitted to VLIR-UOS
                           Analysis whether idea is
                           fundable and matching is
                           feasible
 appraisal matchmaking     Analysis against VLIR-UOS      VLIR-UOS          Projects admitted for
                           policy                                           formulation
                           Flemish interest based                           Formalised matching
                           negotiations
 Formulation               Collection of data, consul-    PROJECT LEADERS   Project proposals
                           tation, detailed formulation
 Funding decision                                         VLIR-UOS          Funded programme
 implementation and        Annual planning                ALL ACTORS        Implementation as planned
 monitoring                Annual implementation          BUT MAINLY        Adapted when necessary
                           Adaption as required           PROJECT
                                                          PARTNERS
 evaluation                Evaluation activities          ALL PARTIES       Evaluation report
 (every 3 to 5 years)                                     AND EXTERNAL      Lessons learnt fed back
                                                          ACTORS            to cycle




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


 Source: SUA Facts and Figures, November 2005.



    Currently SUA has a total of 305 academic staff. Out of these, 190 are Ph.D. hold-
ers, 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 na-
            tional and local), community based organisations (CBOs), non governmental organisa-
            tions (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 stake-
            holder participants from both the North and South. Southern stakeholders including po-
            tential 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 stakehold-
            ers 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 dur-
ing 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 (curricu-
lum 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 re-
ceiving 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 objec-
            tives 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 re-
                    viewed 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, lec-
                    tures) ; Patents ; Other criteria where appropriate.
               ✱    KRA 2: Teaching
                    Number of courses/training programmes developed; New of substantially up-
                    dated curriculum; Textbook development; Learning packages developed (dis-
                    tance 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 in-
                    puts; 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 quantita-
tive 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, op-
            portunities 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 pro-
                   gramme, for instance by giving fellowships or by allowing academics to go to
                   the field?
                ✱  were Flemish academics personally committed (e.g. spend their holidays work-
                   ing 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=     (very) poor
                2=     insufficient / low
                3=     sufficient
                4=     good / high
                5=     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 timeta-
bling 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 com-
puters 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 gov-
ernment 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 ICT-
based 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 ob-
tained; 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 excel-
lence 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 lit-
            eracy 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 sim-
            ulate 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 poi-
            son actions; a PC-model or graphical model to estimate outbreak probability; recom-
            mendations handed out to the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health exten-
            sion 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 quali-
            fied, 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 inter-
            national 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 husband-
ry, 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 demonstra-
tion unit (RTDU) dealing with land, water and forest resources management in moun-
tainous zones established and operational; Farmer-operated demonstration plots on ap-
propriate 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 with-
out 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 train-
ing 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 im-
proved 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 (South-
            South) by April 2006; Curriculum approved by the university council by April 2006;
            Participation of students in laboratory practicals; Equipments used for research and con-
            sultancy 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 Inter-
                     disciplinary 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 pub-
                     lished 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.com-
                     puter.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 sur-
    rounding 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 ac-
    counts 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, continu-
    ing 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 sup-
    ported 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 develop-
                   ing 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       2:   Teaching                 N/A
                KR A       3:   Extension and Outreach   N/A
                KR A       4:   Management               N/A
                KR A       5:   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                     Explanation and/or justification
kra 1: research                      More articles in peer reviewed journals than anticipated (publications
                                     listed below)
kra 2. teaching                      Staff involved in teaching more courses than earlier planned. A book
                                     manual for pest management was developed
kra 3: extension and outreach        Staff involved in aadvising farmers on rodent pest management in vari-
                                     ous districts in Tanzania
kra 4: management                    Not much involved in this type of activity
kra 5: human resources development   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.
kra 6: infrastructure management     All technical and scientific staff provided with computers, laboratories
                                     were also furnished with new equipment.
kra 7: mobilisation of additional    Several Flemish travel grants, SUA became lead university in the Ethio-
resources/opportunities              Belgo-Tanzania Research Project in Ethiopia, other project proposals
                                     submitted and approved, Flemish Ph.D. students at SUA and two
                                     Tanzanian Ph.D.s obtained
kra other                            None



   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 cy-
        totaxonomic 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 iso-
                     lates 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 char-
                     acterization 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 re-
                     veals 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 fluc-
                     tuations in three ecologically distinct locations in north-east, central and south-
                     west 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 popula-
    tion 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 mam-
    mals 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 natalen-
                     sis (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 popu-
                     lation 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 agro-
                     ecological 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 spot-
    ted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) on tomatoes: mortality, repellence, feed-
    ing 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 para-
    sitoids 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 pat-
                   terns 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 mor-
                   phometric and classical qualitative morphological analysis of the taxonomic sta-
                   tus 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.) dam-
      age 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 multidiscipli-
      nary 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 mo-
     lecular 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 social-
                     economic 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 agro-
                     ecological 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 com-
                   mon 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 agricul-
                   ture 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 north-
    ern 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 man-
                     agement 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 dur-
                   ing 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 un-
                   dergraduate 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 con-
servation 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 envi-
ronmental 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 stu-
dents 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 fund-
ing 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 sup-
port 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 Phaeocystis-
                   dominated 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 ap-
                   plication 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 experi-
                   ments. 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 re-
                   action-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 tim-
    ber 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 applica-
    tion 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 instruc-
                     tion (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 onlan-
                     guage, 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). Large-
    Scale 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 par-
                     asite 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 Sulfadoxine-
                     Pyrimethamine 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 rota-
                     tional 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 over-
                     view 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 generaliza-
   tion 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 plas-
   ma 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 ori-
   gin of stem cuttings and different levels of indole-3-butyric acid on the vegeta-
   tive 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 attend-
            ed 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 undergrad-
            uate 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 part-
      ner 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 uni-
      versity’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 ac-
      commodated within the account system of SUA. The financial regu-
      lations were in the beginning not very clear. In the Phase II this was
      much improved. We were confronted with some management con-
      straints 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 orientat-
      ed 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 suf-
                     ficiently 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 mis-
                     sion 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 nor-
                     mal 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 interna-
    tional 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 re-
    ports 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 fol-
    lowing 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-generat-
    ing 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 col-
    laboration 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 regula-
                     tions and the huge personal input the universities in N and S were sup-
                     posed 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 be-
                     tween projects.
                ✱    The university improves/increases its offer in HE; Score 1; the PU im-
                     proved 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 compo-
                     nents can benefit of the equipment.
                ✱    The PU is provided with scientific literature; Score 2. The library im-
                     provement 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 follow-
       ing 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 (stu-
       dents), 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            Short explanation
                                                               (1 to 5)
                                                            Phase i   Phase ii
             Adherence to agreed upon procedures              3          1       in the beginning the vlir procedures were not
             (agreement, advice etc)                                             clear explains the difference in quotes for
                                                                                 phase 1 and phase 2
             Adherence to planning and budgets                2          1       except for the slight delay in Ph.d. (which is
                                                                                 acceptable) everything went as scheduled
             Quality of consultation in case of deviation     3          2       although we did not always agree, consulta-
             and/or rejected expenses (by Flemish univer-                        tion was ok.
             sity, VLIR-UOS or DGDC)                                             because of the lack of clear financial rules in
                                                                                 phase 1, some problems showed up
             Programme wide understanding of relevant         3          1       although there is overregulation the rules are
             definitions (budget lines, scholarship costs                        more or less clear now in phase2
             etc.                                                                the problem though is that they are often
                                                                                 not in line with local Sua regulations which
                                                                                 makes it sometimes difficult to implement
             Clarity and transparency of programme level      2          1
             procedures
             Willingness to accommodate one another …         2          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 con-
sider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the current status of programme manage-
ment? 1 = very strong 2 = strong; 3 = neutral; 4 = weak 5 = very weak

                                                         Score                Short explanation
                                                        (1 to 5)
Communication, monitoring and critical                     1                  although too much micromanage-
review                                                                        ment, the programme went smoothly
Planning and budgeting                                     1
Flexibility and pragmatism                                 1
Consultation and participation                             1
Result tracking                                            2                  too much process-oriented and not
                                                                              enough output-oriented due to iuc
                                                                              regulations
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 im-
proving 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                                                   Elaboration
Enhancement of the quality of University education at    there was great human resource capacity building in
SUA.                                                     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 ob-
                                                         tained through the collaboration.
Elevation of the Basic Sciences Unit (BSU) to the        iuc funding was crucial in enhancing the elevation of the
Faculty of Science (FoS)                                 basic Sciences unit (bSu) into the Faculty of Science
                                                         (FoS)
The formation of the SUA Pest Management Centre/         rodent research results indicated the magnitude of pest
Excellence in rodent research                            problems, hence Sua decided to have a full centre deal-
                                                         ing not only with rodents but with other pests as well. due
                                                         to iuc funding, Sua now boasts to be a centre of excel-
                                                         lence in rodent research in africa.
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 pre-
                     senting 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 agree-
                     ment. We, at SUA, always found relevance in what our Northern coun-
                     terparts 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 fund-
                     ing 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 excel-
       lent/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 re-
       sults 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 mis-
       sion 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 internation-
al 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 part-
            nership with SUA, there were a number of occasions when SUA rules and
            regulations were not taken into account. This adversely affected the relation-
            ship 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     Short explanation
                                                      (1 to 5)
 The partner university develops its staff               2       the iuc Programme helped to train
 e.g. upgrading of the staff to M.Sc.. and/or                    more that 10 staff members at
 Ph.D. level; attracting additional staff mem-                   diploma level, at least 11 at Ph.d.
 bers, …                                                         level and a number of others at
                                                                 masters level> this is by no means a
                                                                 small achievement
 The partner university improves/increases               2       attractive curricula were de-
 its offer in higher education                                   veloped for Faculty of Science
 e.g. developing new curricula, adapting exist-                  (b.Sc. environmental Sciences
 ing curricula by including new/more research                    and management), agri-business
 based projects, introduction of new technolo-                   (Faculty of agriculture), and m.Sc.
 gies (distance education), …                                    nutrition (Faculty of agriculture).
                                                                 the ict is planning distance
                                                                 education.
 The partner university improves/increases               2       due to the investments acquire
 its research activities                                         through the partnership, Sua is now
 e.g. new research projects, attracting Ph.D..                   able to do a lot more research than
 students, launching a research training pro-                    before. it is attracting students
 gramme, …                                                       together with researchers from the
                                                                 ministry of agriculture and Food
                                                                 Security to use its facilities (at a
                                                                 cost, thus ensuring funds for main-
                                                                 taining the equipment).
 The partner university generates research               2       true with the rodent research
 output                                                          (Project 3) and Soil and water
 e.g. increase in the number of publications,                    research (Project 4).
 patents, of Ph.D..s delivered
 The partner university is provided with equip-          1       a substantial amount of equipment
 ment / hardware                                                 was acquired for FoS, Soil and water
 e.g. installation of a LAN / internal computer                  as well as for ict, rodent research
 network; installation of computer classes;                      and agri-business. these are avail-
 installation of a link with internet, installation              able for use by the whole university.
 of a generator, rehabilitation of a building, in-
 stallation of a distance education network, in-
 stallation of a student registration system, …
 The partner university is provided with                 2       very true in case of the Sokoine
 scientific literature / information and with                    national agricultural library (Snal).
 specialised personnel that can work with                        again the literature is available to
 the new information search and delivery                         all.
 technologies
 e.g. the university got subsriptions to books,
 magazines, databases, …
 The partner university increases its attrac-            2       there is a significant annual in-
 tiveness to students/staff                                      crease of students and staff who
 e.g. better study programmes attract better                     want to join Sua. however, this may
 students; better reputation / better working                    not necessarily be solely due spin
 environment (infrastructure) attracts better                    offs of the collaboration
 qualified staff,
Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




             The partner university is developing               1         it is now a centre of excellence in a
             institutionally                                              number of fields in the Sadc region;
             e.g. the university is professionalising its                 the accounting system is now fully
             management relating to e.g. research policy                  electronic while it was manual a few
             (creation of a Research Council), interna-                   years ago.
             tional cooperation policy (creation of an in-
             ternational relations office), personnel policy,
             financing policy, developing quality assur-
             ance systems, …
             The partner university is able to establish        2         there is South-South, South-
             international / regional university networks                 north-South as well as north South
             e.g. the university gets involved in university              networking.
             networks, …
             The partner university renders services to         1         ict, Snal, rodent research, Soil and
             society                                                      water research and FoS are render-
             e.g. more extension work                                     ing services to the society.
             Others (please identify)



               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) con-
            ducted 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 ma-
            terial 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 involv-
            ing 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 lit-
tle 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 ap-
proved 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 institu-
tional 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             Short explanation
                                                                    (1 to 5)
                                                                Phase i     Phase ii
             Adherence to agreed upon procedures                    3          1       in the beginning (Phase i), the system (vlir)
             (agreement, advice etc.)                                                  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 pro-
                                                                                       gramme implementation.
             Adherence to planning and budgets                      2          1       except for a few instances when budgeting
                                                                                       was not properly done (once, in scholarships),
                                                                                       budgets were generally well adhered to during
                                                                                       Phase ii.
             Quality of consultation in case of deviation           3          2       although we sometimes did not agree, consul-
             and/or rejected expenses                                                  tations always led to amicable solutions.
                                                                                       because of the lack of clear financial guide-
                                                                                       lines especially during in Phase i, some prob-
                                                                                       lems showed up.
             Programme wide understanding of relevant               3          1       although there is financial regulations are
             definitions (budget lines, scholar ship costs                             stringent, the rules are more or less clearer in
             etc.)                                                                     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 imple-
                                                                                       ment sometimes


             Clarity and transparency of programme level            2          1       Programme level procedures were very trans-
             procedures                                                                parent and clear during Phase ii since both the
                                                                                       coordinators and Project leaders were conver-
                                                                                       sant with what was taking place.
             Willingness to accommodate one another …               2          1       very good interpersonal relations during
                                                                                       Phase ii.


                Overall management
                When reviewing the overall programme management, what would the group con-
            sider 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       Short explanation
                                                             (1 to 5)
             Communication, monitoring and critical             1         the programme went smoothly although we feel that there
             review                                                       was a bit too much micro-management.
             Planning and budgeting                             1         Planning and budgeting were done together and adhered to.
             Flexibility and pragmatism                         1         a few times we had ‘to fly by the seats of our pants’.
             Consultation and participation                     1
             Result tracking                                    2         we feel the Programme was a bit too much activity-oriented
                                                                          and not enough output-oriented due to iuc regulations
             Academic standards                                 1         high academic standards were maintained
                                                               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 collabo-
ration in the framework of other projects (other donors)
   Please formulate your three main recommendations to VLIR-UOS in terms of im-
proving 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                                                  Total disbursed in Euros
1997                                                                        265,205.32
1998                                                                         150,156.10
1999                                                                        136,390.62
2000                                                                         71,821.05
2001                                                                        106,957.30
2002                                                                         11,569.87
2003                                                                        163,322.86
2004                                                                         94,373.29
2005                                                                         77,296.99
2006                                                                          45,151.00
total                                                                    €1,122,244.00
annex xvi : Summary of financial contributions made by vlir to the Sua-vlir uoS Programme (1997 – 2006)



BUDGET ITEM   AMOUNT IN EURO
                                                                                                                                             Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




ict                1997        1998    1999    2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005    2006 eStim       total
INVESTMENT        39,379   32,750        0     1,716           -   10,955.99   36,887.61    1,560.76   16,720.99    23,700.00   152,714.30
OPERATIONAL          89        2,614     0    40,842   34,765.95   26,944.34   30,206.23   22,640.50   20,613.92    14,001.00   165,772.88
PERSONNEL             0           0      0        0            -           -           -           -           -                         -
SCHOLARSHIP           0         334      0        0       177.24           -    1,616.68   45,086.10    6,833.51                 54,047.33
INT. TRAVEL         742         923      0        0      824.58     2,041.82     958.57     1,157.24      767.78     1,168.00     6,541.17
RESIDENCE           451         666      0        0            -      492.12    1,438.20     448.52            -     1,289.00     4,293.20
SHIPPING              0           0      0      181            -           -           -           -    2,983.70                  3,164.68
total             40,661   37,287         -   42,740      35,768      40,434      71,107      70,893      47,920       40,158   386,533.56
SNAL               1997        1998    1999    2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005    2006 ESTIM
INVESTMENT         7,727          0      0     3,213    4,307.69     303.02    29,588.03    6,724.89   15,112.66     4,776.00    71,448.90
OPERATIONAL       12,453   17,681        0     5,656   11,679.58   17,337.24   18,161.14   11,714.42   12,202.51    11,102.00   100,649.56
PERSONNEL           217        1,790     0     8,001    7,676.83   43,334.91    6,132.50    6,048.59           -            -    29,865.59
SCHOLARSHIP         327    12,253        0    25,471    9,183.90   26,075.86   15,267.40   13,692.52   13,022.07    16,359.00   105,576.19
INT. TRAVEL        3,655       3,373     0     4,552   5,058.90     1,245.74    3,487.41    3,903.89    2,161.18     1,238.00    27,428.85
RESIDENCE          6,070       2,231      0    1,825    2,815.59    1,916.91    4,069.60    3,661.72     771.42        507.00    21,952.71
SHIPPING            391           0       0       0            -           -     138.65            -    1,193.48                  1,723.34
total             30,839   37,328         0   48,719      40,722      90,214      76,845      45,746     44,463        33,982   358,645.15
rodent reSearch
                   1997      1998    1999     2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005    2006 eStim
INVESTMENT        65,779   15,176      0         0     2,294.18    2,310.96    6,161.01           -     979.88                 90,390.00
OPERATIONAL       24,510    47,974     0    13,173    22,889.90   36,878.91   42,669.27   28,114.37   25,002.51   13,108.00    217,440.71
PERSONNEL            96    21,322      0    62,377     5,893.30    8,881.39    8,795.87    9,169.16    5,433.75     7,525.00   120,612.47
SCHOLARSHIP           0    16,816      0    25,802    38,726.15   15,536.23    6,165.36   14,082.20   10,035.48       317.00   111,944.03
INT. TRAVEL        3,607    6,108      0     2,162     7,061.58   18,458.42    6,052.75    3,856.01    7,382.18    4,784.00     41,013.68
RESIDENCE          1,193    5,362      0         0     2,936.99    2,158.22    2,350.12   3,480.35     5,325.74     4,136.00    24,783.69
SHIPPING             66       729      0         0            -           -           -           -     298.37                   1,093.79
total             95,251   113,487      0   103,514      79,802      84,224      72,194      58,702      54,458       29,870   607,278.37
Soil & water
reSearch           1997      1998    1999     2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005    2006 eStim
INVESTMENT        26,825    9,933      0     3,427    12,212.10   12,389.06    6,666.41   35,070.49    4,704.06            -   98,838.60
OPERATIONAL       12,779   16,602      0    10,153    16,698.52   27,496.93   38,627.89   19,636.28   28,687.03   23,832.00    167,016.11
PERSONNEL           385     2,130      0     5,351     4,524.35    4,725.74    1,395.07    2,250.69    3,142.73    1,908.00     21,086.40
SCHOLARSHIP           0     8,403      0    17,553    15,179.00   12,697.01           -    8,112.46           -            -   49,246.98
INT. TRAVEL        1,849    1,120      0       807     1,414.78    3,143.00   2,464.54     4,366.98    2,091.19    5,253.00     19,366.48
RESIDENCE           959       504      0     1,167      656.82     1,808.60   4,966.46     2,372.85    1,878.07      238.00     12,742.35
SHIPPING              0         0      0         0       797.97           -           -    2,742.30     298.37                   3,838.64
total             42,798   38,692       0   38,457       51,484      62,260      54,120      74,552      40,801       31,231   372,135.54
                                                                                                                                            Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership
Food Science    1997     1998    1999    2000        2001        2002        2003        2004         2005                  16,007.00
INVESTMENT     17,342   14,367     0     7,186   11,567.50   16,835.92           -           -            -                 50,463.13
OPERATIONAL     5,021   16,338     0    13,920    9,092.53    6,419.72           -           -            -                 44,371.01
PERSONNEL          0     3,980     0     9,359    5,118.75    4,080.58           -           -            -                 18,457.11
SCHOLARSHIP        0     5,597     0    48,295   19,804.25   22,890.40           -           -            -                 73,695.82
INT. TRAVEL      757     2,924     0        0            -    3,166.82           -           -            -                  3,680.71
                                                                                                                                        Final Evaluation of the IUC partnership




RESIDENCE        509     4,456     0     1,203           -           -           -           -            -                  6,167.10
SHIPPING           0        0      0        0            -           -                       -            -                         -
total          23,629   47,661      0   79,962      45,583      53,393          0           0            0                 196,834.90
FoS             1997     1998    1999    2000        2001        2002        2003        2004         2005    2006 eStim
INVESTMENT     23,522   49,245     0    14,802   48,780.08   49,775.34   76,087.77   12,208.24   43,006.10     16,674.00   284,326.29
OPERATIONAL    10,944    8,366     0     5,870   12,096.43   16,207.87   12,397.55   17,210.85    8,734.64      9,972.00    85,592.27
PERSONNEL          0        0      0        0            -     859.69     1,920.04    2,250.69    1,789.33     3,039.00      8,999.06
SCHOLARSHIP        0    11,805     0    31,207   34,448.02   33,818.69   40,055.11   37,958.33   47,302.01     17,056.00   219,831.14
INT. TRAVEL     2,369     880      0     4,914    3,117.12     670.32     4,012.92    1,129.34      419.60      1,121.00    17,963.03
RESIDENCE       2,251    5,406     0     4,833    3,037.39     652.28     1,123.41      416.09     2,147.00      128.00     19,341.17
SHIPPING           0        0      0        0            -           -           -           -    1,571.28       250.00      1,821.28
total          39,086   75,703      0   61,626     101,479     101,984     135,597      71,174   104,969.96    48,240.00   637,874.24
agribuSineSS                         1997              1998               1999             2000              2001              2002              2003             2004             2005                    16,007.00
INVESTMENT                        22,689            20,673                   0              772         9,643.85         17,703.46                   -                    -            -                   53,777.72
OPERATIONAL                         1,505             8,652                  0          10,963         16,967.50         19,577.93                   -                    -            -                  38,088.08
PERSONNEL                                0                 0                 0                 0        1,356.15            829.35                   -                    -            -                    1,356.15
SCHOLARSHIP                        5,844             19,172                  0          32,391        29,590.44          18,835.12                   -                    -            -                   86,997.81
INT. TRAVEL                         4,439                  0                 0              970           824.58          2,468.65                   -                    -            -                    6,234.13
RESIDENCE                           5,755                  0                 0              691                  -        1,486.01                   -                    -            -                    6,445.41
SHIPPING                                 0              717                  0              295                  -                 -                                      -            -                    1,011.24
total                             40,232             49,214                  0           46,081           58,383             60,901                  0                    0           0                   193,910.54
coordination
(Pcu + ua)c                          1997              1998               1999             2000              2001              2002              2003             2004             2005    2006 eStim
INVESTMENT                        64,599              9,287                  0          48,117         18,991.40          1,296.20          7,932.03         26,782.63        15,855.29             -     191,564.25
OPERATIONAL                       11,240            22,322                   0          26,234         38,421.50         38,011.93         34,346.14         25,168.86        27,732.64    29,686.00      215,151.41
PERSONNEL                         18,780            41,650                   0                 0       11,026.88          7,016.34          4,143.12          4,421.28         4,805.31     5,598.00      90,424.82
SCHOLARSHIP                              0                 0                 0                 0                 -            36.37         3,830.75                      -            -       72.00        3,902.75
INT. TRAVEL                        3,580             4,238                   0            6,574         4,457.23          9,409.68          4,874.85         11,526.66         4,890.36      8,104.00     48,244.72
RESIDENCE                           5,667            6,453                   0            6,677         4,404.71          4,915.38          8,409.78           7,221.18        4,213.45      6,959.00     50,005.42
ADMINISTRATION                    40,990            38,268                   0          44,411        50,828.20         51,547. 50         44,047.07         37,892.28        31,502.65       7,967.0    295,905.90
total                            144,856            122,218                  0          132,013           128,130           112,233          107,584            113,013          89,000       58,386      895,199.27
                                                                    a
grand total                      457,352           521,590              554,783         553,112          541,350        605,643.52        517,447.31        434,079.72        381,612.24   241,867.00   4,808,838.10


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