REWMP’s Place in Policy

Whilst not the first donor-funded CBNRM wildlife project in Tanzania, the REWMP project, which began in 1992, grew to become one of the most important examples of such projects in the country. By 2001 REWMP’s successor, MBOMIPA, was described as one of the top two leading CBNRM projects in Tanzania, alongside the Ukutu WMA⁶⁴ (which came out of the SCP), and the only one that provided extensive experience of the sale of wildlife quotas to resident hunters (Walsh, 2000; Elliott, 2001). Its high profile meant that it was used by the Wildlife Division as an example of the development of CBNRM in Tanzania on a frequent basis, hosting visits from senior ministry staff, the Director of Wildlife, the UK Secretary of State for International Development, members of other community conservation projects around the country and students from the most prestigious college of wildlife management in Tanzania (Walsh, 1998; Walsh, 2003). This high profile at the national level and good reputation, I will argue, was carefully constructed by actors working within and around the project who, according to their own beliefs, engaged in the discursive struggle of creating policy space and influence. These actors positioned themselves and REWMP to provide significant contributions to the process of policy formulation and implementation. Below I outline three concrete impacts upon policy that came from REWMP.

Firstly REWMP led the way in the design of the structures of management authority for WMAs. At a 1994 workshop of community conservation stakeholders and policy makers for the wildlife sector, a representative from REWMP raised the issue of a need to design WMAs to be managed across multiple villages, instead of individually managed sections of the WMA at the village scale (Leader-Williams et al., 1996). The latter was the model being implemented at the time in the highly influential SCP (Hartley, 1996), but the REWMP representative argued that the project had identified concerns over this model based on the socio-ecological characteristics of the project area; highly uneven patterns of human population and land rights by village drove the representative to argue that a WMA must operate across participating villages or risk producing fragmented conservation areas and excluding many villages from participating and benefitting from such a project (Hartley,

64 Usually referred to by the name of the AA for this WMA: JUKUMU.

163 1996). The inter-village model of WMA management is the one that has since been adopted into policy.

Two further elements of the REWMP and subsequent MBOMIPA institutional structures have since been adopted into national model for wildlife CBNRM, as set out in policy. The first is the incorporation of a District Natural Resources Advisory Board (DNRAB) into the institutional structure of WMAs, and the second is the right of the communities involved in the project to hold decision-making rights over the use of wildlife quotas on their land (Hartley, 1997; EPIQ, 2000; Walsh, 2003). The formation of a DNRAB, then named the District Steering Committee, into REWMP came at the mid-project review in 1995 (Mackenzie, 1995), and from a community conservation workshop held in Ruaha National Park in November 1994 (Hartley, 1997). The justification for such an institution came from issues of forging links between the local, district and national levels, and because an institution for conflict arbitration was deemed necessary (Hartley, 1997). The structure of the REWMP District Steering Committee (eventually settled at its third meeting in May 1996), and these two responsibilities were adopted into the WMA guidelines from their first and second drafts (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2000c; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2000d) and the first draft of the WMA regulations (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, 2001b).

The second aspect in which a direct influence from REWMP can be identified in the WMA policies resulted from decisions about the wildlife utilisation component in the project. This was not initiated until April 1995 due to complex conflicts between stakeholders and the ideologies of the partners involved in the project (see 5.5.1, Hartley, 1997). Through the transition strategy between REWMP and MBOMIPA (1995, see Walsh, 1996), the project initiated the right of the communities involved to decide on the use of the wildlife quotas allocated to them on village land (Hartley, 1997). This gave them the right to decide whether to sell these quotas to resident hunters, or to hunt the animals themselves to provide meat for the community. REWMP was, therefore, “the first community wildlife project in Tanzania to have established the right of the communities to make choices about the resources occurring on their land” (Hartley, 1997: iv). This right is instilled in law in WMA regulation 51 (Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2002a; Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2005) and in the WMA guidelines (Wildlife Division, 2001).

164 5.5.3.2 REWMP: Networks, Relationships and the Creation of a National Example In this section, I address the question of how REWMP was constructed and positioned as a major example of wildlife CBNRM within the policy network Tanzania and I investigate the processes by which influence was wielded through the creation of policy space. Hartley (1997: 58) describes REWMP as “in the right place at the right time” because it was an emerging project just as the need for a coherent policy for CBNRM was becoming clear. A REWMP staff member described the project’s influence as “REWMP made leaps forward...mov[ing] the storyline and Selous then had to catch up” (Interview P77). This fortuitous timing that coincided with an established and growing agenda for wildlife CBNRM and calls for a national policy enabled REWMP to mould itself in line with policy and contribute to it on an ongoing basis. This key strategy was possible for REWMP (which was UK-funded) due to the lack of the funding body’s engagement in wildlife conservation projects previously, which meant that project staff were not tied to a project model set out by its funding body (Interview P77). The ability of the project’s staff to engage with this policy formulation process was forged through the connections it developed at the national level and within the policy community.

Firstly, project staff had close relationships with the officers working on the PAWM project.

Together PAWM and REWMP staff decided that REWMP would implement the models that were being developed for policy, rather than implement a donor-led model (Interview P77).

REWMP was therefore able to create its own systems and develop alongside the national rather than a donor agenda (Interview P77). These were important steps in the construction of the discourse coalition that went on to become institutionalised in policy.

Through its close relationship with PAWM, this strategy allowed the project to sit strategically at the centre of policy debates, and secured an invitation to present at a PAWM workshop on community conservation in the wildlife sector, held in February 1994 (see Leader-Williams et al., 1996). The conference not only reviewed the projects ongoing in the country at that time, but also debated the concept of a WMA and began the process of policy formation by creating a new draft of the Policy for Wildlife Conservation and Utilisation, introducing CBNRM in a formal policy capacity. It is from this point on that we can see the rise of REWMP and the creation of a national example.

The February 1994 workshop placed REWMP within the leading group of high profile CBNRM projects in Tanzania and highlighted the work of the project to the policy

165 community in attendance (Interview P77). The Deputy Director of Wildlife became particularly interested in the work of REWMP and a close relationship developed between REWMP staff and the Wildlife Division as a result (Interview P74). The close connections between the project staff and the Wildlife Division were increasingly important when the Deputy Director of Wildlife took over as Director in 1995. The relationship proved to be decisive in the future of the project, as it stimulated discussions that resulted in support from the Wildlife Division, including the provision of a Game Officer, facilities, advice and high profile support in times of conflict (Hartley, 1997; Interview P76). As a consequence of this developing relationship, in November 1994 a second workshop was held at Ruaha National Park between the Wildlife Division, District officials and REWMP staff, with the purpose of discussing the future of the project (Hartley, 1997). This workshop resulted in REWMP being designated as a pilot of the WMA concept by the Wildlife Division, which signalled that the project had become a major player within the policy network (Interviews P76, P74).

The personal relationships created with the policy community are therefore key to the process by which REWMP became a high profile national example of CBNRM. The personal connection to the Director of Wildlife was also an important opportunity for the construction of policy space, which providing a means for the project staff’s priorities, opinions and findings to be heard at policy making forums.

As a nationally-recognised pilot of CBNRM in Tanzania, and particularly through the integration of REWMP staff into the dominant discourse coalition and the close connections with the policy community (the Director of Wildlife in particular) and other key actors and organisation within the coalition (especially PAWM), significant policy space was created around REWMP, enabling the influence upon policy that are described in 5.5.3.1. This influence was not one-way however. As mentioned in 5.5.3, the utility of such pilot projects to the policy community, their role in witnessing and their strategic use by the policy network needs to be considered. I argue that the REWMP case indicates that whilst a pilot project may be the focus for construction of policy space, policy is co-constructed between the local and national levels, and pilot projects can act as the centre for such discursive practices. Not only does a pilot project identity legitimise the position of its staff within the policy network, opening space for the inclusion of their particular views into policy processes, but the grounded identity of such projects is also beneficial to the policy community. REWMP’s malleable nature, which helped project staff to position the project within the dominant discourse coalition and align the project with developing policy, left the project open to the

166 interests of those within the coalition and the policy community. In the case of REWMP, the close personal connections between project staff and the Director of Wildlife was significant in the initiation of wildlife utilisation within the project, at the insistence of the Director of Wildlife, despite ongoing conflicts and recommendations to delay further (see 5.5.1). The decision to implement the strategy was important for the status of REWMP, maintaining its position within the dominant discourse coalition and its close support from the Wildlife Division, but was also beneficial to the Director of Wildlife and the policy community at the time, who championed wildlife utilisation within CBNRM, and were able to use the REWMP project to discursively frame, ground and witness their own policy agendas.