Cluster III. Good governance and accountability:
8.7. Influencing policymaking and implementation processes
Understanding the governance context
Tanzania has not been a multi-party state very long; the legacy of a long one-party socialist history is still evident in the hierarchical structure of society and the power of government. Tanzania’s post-colonial regime (from the 1960s to mid-1980s) attempted to control the economy and the natural resource base more comprehensively than in any other African country. Equally comprehensive were its efforts to fragment and dominate the country’s civil society. In the subsequent era of economic liberalisation and re-structuring, Tanzanian policymakers have continued to take a very centralised approach and have not adequately involved local communities in decisions that affect them. This has led to the creation of laws and institutions that are not responsive to local needs and are often unpopular and unsupported (Reed, 2001).
In general, good governance in Tanzania seems to have declined over the last couple of decades. The continued centralisation of political power in the emerging liberalised economy has facilitated increasingly close bonds with economic actors whose wealth has grown under the new regime rules. This deepening convergence between political and economic elites has generated concern about the degree to which corruption dominates national political life.
Community opportunities to influence policy
A multi-stakeholder workshop in 2003 concluded that local communities have very little influence over conservation policy, far less than any other stakeholders. The workshop recommended that they should have a central role in shaping conservation policy (Swiderska et al., 2003). Local people are seldom involved in policymaking or implementation. While government policy talks about community participation, and TANAPA claims to be involving local communities in conservation planning and management, this does not seem to be happening on the ground.
106
Many local communities are remote, without communications or effective representation other than through the local government hierarchy, which is not a very effective channel for voicing community concerns.
The formal mechanism for raising community concerns at the national level is to take concerns to the village government, who then passes them to the district government and then on to the national government. This mechanism depends very much on the willingness of the different levels of government to relay those concerns, and this willingness may be lacking, especially if the concerns conflict with their interests. Although there are democratic structures at the local level, such as the Village Assembly and the District Council, most of the power still rests with officials who are appointed, as opposed to elected. Village governments are often managed in a top-down manner by individuals who are “not aware” of the formal requirements for managing them. For example, the Village Assembly is the highest organ at this level empowered to take policy decisions, but it appears that assembly meetings rarely take place, partly because the villagers themselves are often unaware of their right to hold them (Swiderska et al., 2003). A recent study has given detailed accounts of the corrupt and violent practices of village governments in some parts of Tanzania, and highlighted the predatory relationship between village government and the central and district governments (Brockington, 2007).
In the conservation sector, the government has conducted a number of consultation exercises in connection with the development of new policy and legislation and this process often includes local communities. While on paper this may seem like an adequate forum for ensuring all views are taken into account, the nature of consultations makes effective participation very limited. Typical consultations involve local and regional workshops to which local communities are invited. However, because of the formalised and hierarchical structure of government, local people actually have limited opportunities and willingness to voice concerns in these fora. Tanzanian culture makes it difficult to criticise those who are in a higher position of authority and so even if opportunities are presented for local communities to have their say they often decline to raise concerns. Furthermore, since it is the government that identifies which stakeholders to involve, it can easily sideline those who are too critical, while at the same time claiming broad representation (Swiderska et al., 2003).
Overcoming the institutional and political resistance to devolving control over valuable resources will require longer term efforts to strengthen civil society and support participation in policy processes and negotiation with the state.
Conservation NGOs and policy influence
Grassroots organisations have little influence on national conservation policy unless they are effectively networked at national level. National conservation NGOs that work with local communities provide an important conduit for raising local concerns at national level through their own consultation processes (eg. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group’s Community Forest Network, which links together communities involved in forest management and to local and national government). However, national conservation NGOs do not necessarily try to influence policy; they tend to be more concerned with implementing projects on the ground. International conservation NGOs, which tend to follow a more protectionist approach, have more influence on Tanzania’s conservation policy because they are better resourced than national NGOs (Swiderska, et al., 2003).
As well as bringing community concerns to the government level, NGOs also play a key role in translating government policy to the local level. However, this flow of information from government to civil society is not as simple as explaining policy—much government information, other than policy, remains classified. Where information is not officially classified, barriers to accessing it are common, for example red tape requirements for research permits.
A few civil rights groups in Dar es Salaam (eg. LEAT – the Lawyers Environmental Action Team) are actively seeking to influence conservation policy to reduce the social impacts of protected areas. However, civil rights groups tend to have less influence over policy than conservation NGOs since vocal organisations risk being sidelined from policy processes.
Under the 2002 NGO Act, advocacy organisations which become too active risk being de-registered. The act is seen by many as an attempt by the government to assert powers of registering and de-registering NGOs according to its wishes. Furthermore, most organisations addressing land-use conflicts associated with protected areas (eg. pastoralist associations) are based in Arusha in northern Tanzania, where such conflicts are more pronounced.
107
Other actors with policy influence
Some donor agencies have significant influence over conservation policy, often greater than that of NGOs. GTZ, for example, has played an important role in promoting the introduction of participatory conservation policies through pilot projects and policy dialogue. However, because of their close relationship with the central government, many donor agencies and international conservation NGOs have not supported community resource claims or strengthened civil society engagement in institutional reforms (Nelson, 2007).
Furthermore, the institutional incentives of donor agencies do not encourage the kind of long-term, flexible support needed to transform existing power relations and resource governance institutions. Community wildlife management (CWM) is essentially “a political process and thus requires adaptability, flexibility and opportunism”, rather than projects which are rigid, large-scale and short-term (Nelson, 2007). Thus, CWM should arguably be supported through donor governance programmes rather than environment programmes.
Elected MPs also have a potentially important role to play in highlighting community concerns. In certain cases—
where MPs have their constituents’ interests at heart—they have been influential in ensuring proper consultation processes. In others, MPs may come from a different tribal background to many of their constituents and thus have little interest in voicing their concerns. Some people feel that significant policy change is unlikely until a new generation of bureaucrats comes into place in about 10-15 years time (Swiderska, et al., 2003).
Ways forward
The 2003 study on civil society influence on policy identified the following possible activities that could be pursued to strengthen civil society’s influence on conservation policies and promote a more pro-poor approach:
1. Extend the role of the NGO Policy Forum to advocacy on community-conservation conflicts, and strengthen the involvement of regional grassroots organisations working with affected communities, eg. pastoralist groups in Arusha.
2. Increase the efforts of international donors and NGOs to strengthen Tanzanian civil society from national to village level (eg. through financial support, capacity building, etc.), and persuade the government of the need to become more responsive to civil society (eg. by amending the NGO Act, and making decision-making mechanisms more inclusive and transparent).
3. Raise awareness amongst MPs about community-conservation conflicts, and strengthen their links with civil rights groups and representatives of affected communities.
4. Increase the participation of civil rights and development NGOs in the Donor-NGO Informal Discussion Group on Environment, and in similar fora.
In terms of the process attributes of effective policy, this case study highlights the critical need to:
Shape policy on the basis of local experience and stakeholder participation.
•
Experiment with new approaches in order to inform policy.
•
Continuously inform and refine policy and law based on local experience.
•
Strengthen vertical and horizontal information flows and co-ordination.
•
Renegotiate and redefine the role of different actors, and truly empower local communities to play an active
•
role in resource management.
Ensure policy is accompanied by the necessary institutional change for implementation.
•
108
Provide strong political leadership and incentives to promote institutional change.
•
The following general tactics for influencing policy were highlighted:
As a first step, identify allies amongst policymakers.
•
Avoid a confrontational approach, otherwise policymakers will not listen (ie. voice concerns in private).
•
Provide information to advocacy organisations to increase public pressure.
•
Using direct links to policy processes, eg. through participation on government committees, often promotes
•
more rapid change than normal research dissemination activities (eg. workshops).
Avoid the risk of community-capacity building work being perceived as “mobilising” communities to revolt.
•
Bring different government departments together to promote co-ordination. For example, the Directors of
•
Conservation conferences organised by IUCN/East Africa Office engage finance ministries and identify action points for them to address.
Take policymakers to the field to promote awareness of conservation and livelihoods issues and linkages, and
•
to generate interest in these issues (eg. IUCN/ EAO organised a trip for East African MPs to visit community initiatives near Mount Elgon).
8.8. Suggestions for action-research
Tanzania’s natural resource policies have shifted towards community participation and benefit-sharing. Action-research is now needed to assist the implementation of these new objectives: to understand effective approaches and the institutional systems needed to deliver them, and to facilitate institutional change. The MKUKUTA also provides a clear mandate for scaling-up participatory NRM and improving NR governance and policy coherence.
Case studies on participatory NRm
Action-research case studies could be conducted in order to make governance systems more supportive of participatory NRM and its wider adoption. These could focus on how external governance (ie. policies, institutions and processes) and village governance affect outcomes for biodiversity and livelihoods, and seek to improve governance systems through the research process. Whether the focus is on PFM, CWM or other NR sectors, eg.
fisheries, the case studies could explore horizontal co-ordination between sectors; vertical linkages between levels;
and local institutions (see below).
Given the need to strengthen the capacity and confidence of local communities in order to improve implementation of participatory NRM, the research process should include a strong community capacity-building dimension and should actively involve communities. It should also explore the concerns and priorities identified by local communities (eg. through the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group’s (TFCG) community forest network on PFM, and the Arusha-based Natural Resources Forum). In this way the research can both address these concerns directly (in a technical sense) and strengthen the evidence and arguments needed for getting them addressed at political level.
A national learning group on NR governance could be established to bring different actors together (researchers, communities, district government, national government departments, NGOs). It could discuss the findings of the case studies, help build understanding between the different stakeholders, and channel the findings to inform policy processes. Such a forum could either focus on a single NR sector (eg. PFM or WMAs), or on a combination, given that community-based management across NR sectors faces similar governance challenges. This would also be useful to promote learning and co-ordination between sectors. There is limited communication between the forestry, wildlife and fisheries departments, even though all are seeking to promote community conservation approaches.
109
The case studies should also seek to strengthen the capacity of Tanzanian organisations in defining the research agenda—too much research in Tanzania is consultancy driven, rather than being directed by the strategies of Tanzanian research organisations. The studies could also strengthen links between Tanzanian researchers and practitioners/NGOs working with local communities (eg. TFCG’s community forestry network, and the Natural Resources Forum) to promote a more demand-driven research agenda.
PFm: key issues for action-research
1. Horizontal linkages and co-ordination:
How different NR policies, institutions and processes affect PFM (eg. wildlife, water, agriculture, livestock, land
•
tenure) and how to make these more supportive of PFM (see Section 8.4).
How economic policies and processes affect PFM (eg. macro-economic reforms, market prices, subsidies and
•
incentives).
How to establish more integrated institutions at higher levels which support cross-sectoral integration at village
• level.
2. Vertical linkages and information flows:
How effective are information flows on PFM from national to district to village level and how can they be
•
improved?
How can mechanisms be improved for local communities to voice concerns, make demands and engage in
•
policy dialogue at district and national levels?
How to promote devolution from district to local level and improve downward accountability?
•
3. Village level governance:
What kind of local institutions and processes are needed to prevent elite capture and ensure benefits reach
•
the poorest groups? How to ensure fair representation and accountability? How can existing research on elite capture in Tanzania be effectively targeted to inform the design of PFM initiatives?
PFM uses village level NR committees which are part of village government, while WMAs use non-governmental
•
actors as managers (eg. a CBO or registered association). What difference does this make for representation, accountability and equity?
4. Scaling-up PFM:
A key challenge is to get district governments to adopt PFM as a routine programme. Incentives need to be
•
developed to encourage them to re-invest NR revenues in PFM, along with capacity-building in facilitation and support for PFM.
What are the governance factors that facilitate the establishment, viability and spread of PFM initiatives such
•
as HASHI? What made the government take an approach based on local knowledge and traditional institutions, rather than the usual externally-driven approach? How do traditional institutions and governance systems interface with political governance systems of communities? How is this interface recognised at higher levels?
Why has the Ngitili approach spread from 180 to 830 villages? How did HASHI influence forest policy? Were all the lessons brought into the PFM policy process?
110
5. Improving benefits and devolution (JFM):
In central government reserve forests with high biodiversity value, the following research is needed to enhance devolution and benefit-sharing with communities:
Assess the conservation and livelihood impacts of initiatives where management and ownership rights have
•
been devolved to local communities (eg. possibly Amani), as compared to similar areas with limited or no devolution.
Use participatory analysis and hard data on the costs and benefits of conservation to communities, and the
•
extent to which local conservation efforts benefit wider society (eg. quantity of water provided), to strengthen arguments for community payments for environmental services.
Identify and develop feasible revenue-generating options, including mechanisms for payments for water
•
ecosystem services, and private sector-community partnerships. Explore appropriate mechanisms for redistributing revenues from PFM downwards (eg. public goods or cash hand-outs?).
Explore options for harvesting in biodiversity-rich forests that are designated as production rather than protection
•
forests; develop mechanisms for sharing benefits.
Much research on PFM is already underway in Tanzania, mainly on catchment forests and JFM, which could be synthesised and used as advocacy material for influencing policy. While village forests (CBFM) may have lower biodiversity value, scaling up such initiatives has the potential to improve the livelihoods of millions of people in Tanzania.
Wildlife and protected area policy: key issues for action-research
There is a critical need to make rules for wildlife use less restrictive whilst ensuring wildlife is conserved. The high value of wildlife resources mean they hold significant potential for poverty reduction, but tapping this potential may be difficult for communities because of its value. The following action-research priorities were identified:
WMAs: revise the WMA regulations to reflect community experience and concerns and clarify stakeholder roles
•
(see Section 8.3).
National parks: set up mechanisms for equitable benefit-sharing with local communities.
•
Community-based ecotourism: address local and national governance constraints to devolution.
•
Understanding the value of biodiversity to livelihoods
Research is needed to improve understanding and awareness of the contribution of Tanzania’s biodiversity to local livelihoods, including its role in enhancing resilience of agriculture systems (to drought, crop failure and so on); and its contribution to nutrition, healthcare and income. Participatory assessments to explore the value of biodiversity resources to livelihoods could be conducted as part of the community case studies.
The community case studies could also provide examples of environment-livelihoods integration which could be used to promote mainstreaming at national level. However, further scoping and consultations will be needed to develop the focus and approach of future research on biodiversity governance in Tanzania.
111
ChAPTER 9. PERU
micha Torres, Krystyna Swiderska and Alejandro Argumedo
Research background
This case study is largely based on:
1) A study on national biodiversity and poverty reduction policies in Peru by Micha Torres, May 2005,1 involving interviews with a range of stakeholders.
2) A workshop in Lima on Coordination of Policies on Biodiversity and Poverty: Case studies and the Peru-Brazil Inter-Oceanic Highway, hosted by IIED, Asociacion ANDES and CONAM (the National Commission for Environment), May 2005.
3) A participatory study on biodiversity-poverty linkages conducted with Quechua farmers, co-ordinated by the ANDES, April-July 2005.2
Peru is the world’s fourth most mega-diverse country, with abundant wildlife in the Amazon and rich agricultural biodiversity in both Andean and Amazon regions. About 40% of the world’s foods have been domesticated in Peru, including 3,000 varieties of potato, over 2,000 varieties of sweet potato, 50 ecotypes of maize, 4 types of native cereal and over 1,400 medicinal plants (Brack Egg, 2000). Peru also has considerable cultural diversity, with 43 languages and 14 linguistic families. Agrobiodiversity in Peru is always associated with the traditional practices and cultures of indigenous and peasant farmers. The indigenous population has domesticated and improved a significant number of crop varieties and livestock breeds, many of which have been conserved by farmers despite the threats of cultural change, rising consumption, intensification of agriculture, natural phenomena (climate change) and ecosystem degradation. Although a great deal of in situ conservation activity is still undertaken by peasant farmers, with the growth of markets and other exogenous factors, these conservation practices are starting to erode.
The incidence of poverty, and extreme poverty in particular, is much higher in rural than urban areas, and often
The incidence of poverty, and extreme poverty in particular, is much higher in rural than urban areas, and often