Accessibility Planning Training in Mtwara Region

Tandahimba District: Namdwani and Mpikula Villages

The sensitisation training was held between 4^th and 5^th March 2002, at Namdwani Village. The training was attended by not less than 16 participants (e.g., 31% female), while on the second day, not less than 29 villagers attended from both Namdwani and Mpikula Villages (e.g., 45% being female).

Accessibility Issues at Namdwani and Mpikula Villages.

The main accessibility problems identified in Namdwani village were in regards to access to: markets; water; milling machine; dispensary; and, education. In terms of the 2 hamlets covered, their accessibility problems were mainly based on water (Namdwani and Usalama hamlets). As of Mpikula Village, the main accessibility problems were in regards to: school; water; village office; and, dispensary. In terms of the 2 hamlets covered (Mkwajuni and Mnyekehe), their main problems were also in terms of access to water. In Table 4a below we see that out of 16 services identified by the residents of Mpikula Village, only 7 were available within the village. The remaining 9 services were sought outside the village, and some of them took between 3 to 8 hours to reach and return.

Table 4a. Time taken to reach key services (Mpikula Village).

Accessibility  Assessment in Mpikula Village.
Service	Location		Time to reach service.
	Within	Outside	Hours	Minutes
School		X	2	00
Ward Offices		X	2	00
Dispensary		X	2	00
Court		X	3	00
Police		X	3	00
Milling Machine		X	2	00
Post Office		X	4	00
District Offices		X	8	00
District Hospital		X	3	00
Village Government Offices	X		0	05
Playing Fields	X		0	10
Market	X		0	07
Mosque	X		0	05
Water	X		0	08
Shops	X		0	06
Stores-Godown	X		0	10

Accessibility indicators at Namdwani and Mpikula Villages.

The main accessibility indicators[1] worked out at Mpikula village showed that overall (e.g., in Table 4b, below), water is the service where most villagers are affected by.  Although for both Mkwajuni and Mnyekehe hamlets, another service that causes difficulties to access is school. The hamlet whose residents spent most energy, costs and time accessing the listed services is Mnyekehe hamlet. Its residents use more than 3320 units compared to Mkwajuni’s 2728 units in reaching water and the school services. In Namdwani village, the main accessibility problem is similarly around water. Residents spend in Usalama hamlet spend the most energy, costs and time than those in Namdwani Hamlet to access the listed services. Markets are a second accessibility problem for Namdwani hamlet.

Table 4b. Accessibility Indicators (Namdwani & Mpikula Villages).

Service	Hamlet & Indicators
	Namdwani Hamlet (102 hh)	Usalama Hamlet (128 hh)	Mkwajuni Hamlet (105 hh)	Mnyekehe Hamlet (145 hh)
Water	1530	1920	945	1305
Dispensary	765	768	788	870
Milling Machine	612	768	-	-
Markets	918	1152	-	-
School	101	61	945	1088
Village Government Offices	-	-	50	57
Total:	3926	4669	2728	3320

Immediate accessibility concerns at Namdwani and Mpikula Villages.

From the above table, it is obvious that services that require immediate attention in accessibility at Mpikula village are: water and school. Should these services be improved in terms of accessibility, more than 6050 units will be saved and probably invested into other more productive uses.  As a matter of fact there was once in existence an old piped water system which currently is ineffective. One solution could be to revive this system.  Already most of the households in the area have tried to create own solutions by digging water storage wells at each household. These wells or ground storage, collect rain water and preserve it for the household use when the rains take leave. It was however interesting to note that there appeared to exist serious drainage problems in the village roads. This however was not identified as a key issue during the exrcise.

As for Namdwani village, the most pressing access problem is water and markets. These at present require more than 5500 units of energy, time and costs to access. Should a solution be found, these units could be utilized in more productive activities rather than just traveling to the above mentioned services. Solutions proposed for Namdwani village could also be used in Mpikula village because they have similar circumstances. Considering that the terrain is relatively flat in these villages, the introduction of IMTs would obviously be a thinkable alternative.

Newala District: Songambele and Malatu Villages.

The sensitisation training was held between 6^th and 7^th March, 2002, at Songambele Village. The training was attended by not less than 44 participants (e.g., 32% female), while on the second day, more villagers were added from both Songambele and Malatu Village (mostly female).

Accessibility Issues at Songambele and Malatu Villages.

The main accessibility problems identified in Songarnbele village were in regards to access to: water; school; and, mosque. In terms of the 3 hamlets covered, (Mnyengachi, Songambele Juu and Lubidu), their accessibility problems were mainly based on water.  For instance, the only services that residents in Songambele hamlet identified as being located in their hamlet were traditional birth attendants, burial grounds, and a mosque[2]. Mnyengachi and Lubidu hamlets were slightly better off compared to Songambele hamlet. At least each of these hamlets had not less than six services and goods obtainable within them. As of Malatu Village, accessibility assessment was done in 6 hamlets (Chiuta, Sokoni, Kitangari, Chihwindi and Kilimahewa hamlets); and, water was again the most pressing accessibility problem. The hamlet which seems to be most dependent on its neighbours is Chiuta, where only burial grounds were the service within it. Its residents have to fetch the following services outside the hamlet: water, milling machines, clubs, markets, clinics, churches, shops, offices, farms, mosque, dispensary, firewood, school and playing fields.

Table 5a. Time taken to reach key services (Malatu’s Sokoni Hamlet).

Accessibility  Assessment in Malatu Village’s Sokoni Hamlet.
Service	Location		Time to reach service.
	Within	Outside	Hours	Minutes
Firewood		X	2	00
Farming Lands		X	2	00
Ward Offices		X	0	08
Dispensary		X	0	08
Church		X	0	20
Milling Machine		X	1	00
Water		X	4	00
Fodder		X	1	00
Playing Fields		X	0	20
School		X	0	20
Graveyard	X		0	15
Crop-Market	X		0	03
Mosque	X		0	03
Kiosks	X		0	03
Shops	X		0	03
Market	X		0	03

Accessibility indicators at Songambele Village.

The main accessibility indicators[3] worked out at the village showed that overall (e.g., in Table 5b, below), water is the service where most villagers are affected, followed by school. As we can see in the table below accessing water demands nearly 10 times the time, energy and costs compared to accessing school. Considering that both are daily events, this is obviously a big burden to all residents in all hamlets. The hamlet that seems to be most affected by accessibility of listed items is Lubidu hamlet. However information provided by the villagers during the simulation exercise shows the following situation: In Lubidu hamlet, the residents use considerable time to access water (5 hours), farms (3 hours), and firewood (2 hours). In Mnyengachi hamlet the most demanding services to access are: water from Mpwapwa (5 hours),  Mchemo Village (4 hours), firewood (2 hours), and Mchenje Village (2 hours). As of Songambele hamlet, the situation was already explained above.

Table 5b. Accessibility Indicators (Songambele Village).

Service	Hamlet & Indicators
	Mnyengachi Hamlet (98 hh)	Songambele Juu Hamlet (87 hh)	Lubidu Hamlet (134 hh)	Total:
Water	2300	2175	3350	7825
School	69	261	521	851
Mosque	69	41	210	320
Total:	2438	2477	4081	8996

Immediate accessibility concerns at Songambele Village.

From the above table, it is obvious that services that require immediate attention in accessibility at the village are: water and school.  On the water problem we see that residents in Lubidu, Mnyengachi and Songambele use not less than 5 hours to access reliable water sources. Water is the single most troublesome service at Songambele Village. The problem cannot be further  emphasised. Solutions could range from decreasing proximity to water by facilitating a piped water scheme, or increasinbg efficiency in fetching of water by introducing IMTs, and similarly inducing more men and youth into assisting in fetching water through appropriate technology such as IMTs. On the school issue, at present the school is located in Mnyengachi hamlet, so the residents of Lubidu and Songambele have to travel daily. Since the number of households does not exceed 319, it is not possible to suggest the construction of another school in another hamlet.

Nevertheless, should the above selected services be improved in terms of accessibility, more than 9000 units of time, energy and costs, will be saved and probably invested into other more productive uses.

Accessibility indicators at Malatu Village

The main accessibility indicators[4] worked out at Malatu village showed that overall (e.g., in Table 5c, below), water is the service where most villagers are affected by. As a matter of fact the problem stands out strongly. It is vividly clear that this is a monumental obstacle to the smooth functioning of the residents in all 5 hamlets s concerns access needs. During the simulation exercise with villagers, it was revealed in the mobility maps for Kitangari and Chiuta hamlets, that the only services that were available in the mentioned hamlets was burial grounds. These two hamlets were completely dependent on access to services and goods outside their borders.

Table 5c. Accessibility Indicators (MalatuVillage).

Hamlet & Indicators	Service
	Water	Dispensary	Village Government Offices	School
Chiuta Hamlet  (101 hh)	2020	101	101	101
Sokoni Hamlet  (110 hh)	2200	43	43	109
Kitangari Hamlet  (105 hh)	2100	189	157	189
Chihwindi Hamlet  (110 hh)	2020	165	165	165
Kilimahewa Hamlet  (112 hh)	2240	110	134	54
Total:	10580	608	600	618

Immediate accessibility concerns at Malatu Village.

The table above proves that the single service that requires immediate attention in accessibility at the village is water. As in the previous situation of Songambele Village, the solutions here are similar to those proposed in Songambele Village Namely, a set of options could involve reduction of proximity, increased efficiency in transportation, and increased assistance from other members of the households. Should the access to water services be improved in terms of accessibility, more than 10,500 units of energy, time and costs, shall be saved and probably invested into other more productive uses.

Mtwara Rural District: Dihimba, Mpondomo and Namanjele Villages.

The sensitisation training was held between 11^th and 12^th March, 2002, at Dihimba Village. The training was attended by not less than 20 participants (e.g., 20% female), while on the second day, not less than 38 villagers attended from both Dihimba, Mpondomo and Namanjele Villages (e.g.,45% being female).

Accessibility Issues at Namanjele, Mpondomo and Dihimba Villages.

The main accessibility problems identified in Namanjele Village, was in relation to: school; dispensary; and water. At Namanjele’s Minazini hamlet, most of the residents took more than 3 hours to access school, grazing areas, storage, dispensary and milling machine. While those in Miembeni hamlet also required similar time in order to access school, dispensary, shops, market, and milling machine. Dihimba Village’s accessibility problems were in regards to access to: Mtwara township; water; and means of transportation. For instance the table below shows that residents in Dihimba Mjini hamlet, spend more than 2 hours to access firewood, farming lands and charcoal. At Mpondomo Village, the main access problems were: access to Mtwara; milling machines; and, water. The services which required more than 1 hour to reach in Mpondomo hamlet were playing grounds, traditional healer and market.

In terms of the harnlets covered, the main access problems at Namanjele Villages’ hamlets are: dispensary (Miembeni and Minazini); and, water (Njumbili). As of Mpondomo Village’s hamlets, their main problems was similar, mainly access to Mtwara Township. In Dihimba Village, the main problem for its 2 hamlets (Dinumundu and Dihimba Mjini), was also the access to Mtwara Township.

Table 6a.

Time taken to reach key services

(Dihimba Mjini Hamlet).

Accessibility  Assessment in Dihimba Village’s Dihimba Mjini Hamlet.
Service	Location		Time to reach service.
	Within	Outside	Hours	Minutes
Firewood		X	2	00
Milling Machine		X	0	15
Hospital		X	0	15
Farming Lands		X	2	00
Crop-Markets		X	1	00
Court		X	0	15
Charcoal		X	2	00
Schools			0	30
Livestock	X		0	15
Ward Offices	X		0	15
Water	X		0	10
Mosque	X		0	10
Playing Fields	X		0	10
Village Government Offices	X		0	10
Dispensary	X		0	10

Accessibility indicators at Namanjele Village.

The main accessibility indicators[5] worked out at Namanjele village showed that overall (e.g., in Table 6b, below), dispensary is the service where most villagers are affected in terms of accessibility, followed by school and water. According to the listed services, the hamlet most affected is Miembeni, followed closely by Minazini. In fact, these two hamlets require 4 times the energy, time and costs to access the listed services. Or in other words, residents of Njumbili hamlet access the listed services in a quarter of the time, cost and energy required by their colleagues in the remaining hamlets.

Table 6b. Accessibility Indicators (Namanjele Village).

Service	Hamlet & Indicators
	Miembeni Hamlet (120 hh)	Njumbili Hamlet (47 hh)	Minazini Hamlet (115 hh)	Total
School	1800	11	1725	3536
Dispensary	2400	282	2300	4982
Water	360	705	345	3536
Total:	4560	998	4370	8518

Accessibility indicators at Mpondomo Village.

The main accessibility indicators worked out at Mpondomo village showed that overall (e.g., in Table 6b, below), access to Mtwara township was the pressing access need in the village. Residents seemed to spend about 10 times the energy, time and costs to access the township compared to the other listed services. Milling machines and water are the other services where most villagers are moderately affected in terms of accessibility.

Table 6c. Accessibility Indicators (Mpondomo Village).

Service	Hamlet & Indicators
	Ngande Hamlet (280 hh)	Mpondomo Hamlet (260 hh)	Milimba Hamlet (180 hh)	Lusaka “B” Hamlet (250 hh)
Mtwara Township	2240	2080	1440	2000
Milling Machine	277	195	135	562
Water	210	195	178	450
Total:	2727	2470	1753	3012

Accessibility indicators at Dihimba Village.

The main accessibility indicators[6] worked out at Dihimba village demonstrated that overall (e.g., in Table 6d, below), access to Mtwara township was the service where most households were affected in terms of accessibility, followed by access to the Lindi/Mtwara main road, and water. Overall it is obvious that it is the residents in Namanjele village who waste the most time, energy and costs in accessing the listed services above in comparison to Mpondomo and Dihimba villages.

Table 6d. Accessibility Indicators (Dihimba Village).

Service	Hamlet & Indicators
	Dinumundu Hamlet (150 hh)	Dihimba Mjini Hamlet (59 hh)	Total:
Mtwara Township	900	472	1372
Water	225	28	253
Transportation at the Main-road	600	354	954
Total:	1725	854	2579

Immediate accessibility concerns at Namanjele, Mpondomo and Dihimba Villages.

From the above table, it is obvious that services that require immediate attention in accessibility at the above villages are: access to dispensary at Namanjele village, and access to Mtwara township in both Mpondomo and Dihimba villages. While the former access need is related to proximity and efficiency of transportation means, the latter problem is basically one related to the inefficiency of transportation means due to the extremely lamentable condition of the access road from the villages to the Lindi/Mtwara main road. The existing access road is in a pathetic condition.

The solutions to improving access to the dispensary, could be based on reducing proximity, or increasing efficiency on means of transportation by introducing IMTs and improving the existing paths.  As for the access route to the main road, the solution could be to continue with the spot improvements currently taking place, and extending these into more systematic VTTP type of interventions to guarantee improved access to all villages mentioned herewith. Should these services be improved in terms of accessibility, more than 14, 100 units of energy, time and costs will be saved and probably invested into other more productive uses.

[Extracted from a Report titled "Accessibility Planning Training in Mtwara Regions. Reported by, Edward H Mhina, Participatory Methodology &  Accessibility Planning Trainer & Consultant. Assisted by, Mohammed Mmuya. Ex-VTTP Manager & Road Technician.]

---

[1]               Accessibility Indicator = Number of Households x Time Used x Means of Transportation.

[2]               Most of the residents got their services and goods outside their hamlet, and in average, they required the following time to access these services: 1 hour to access the school, and the CCM Office; 2 hours to access water, markets at Lengo Village, water at Lengo Village, and the milling machine; 3 hours to access the dispensary, and the milling machine in Mdimba Village. If they want to fetch water from Mnolela Village, they needed more than 5 hours.

[3]               Accessibility Indicator = Number of Households x Time Used x Means of Transportation.

[4]               Accessibility Indicator = Number of Households x Time Used x Means of Transportation.

[5]               Accessibility Indicator = Number of Households x Time Used x Means of Transportation.

[6]               Accessibility Indicator = Number of Households x Time Used x Means of Transportation.