Natural Resource Governance in the Sumbawanga Cluster of the Southern Agricultural
Growth Corridor of Tanzania
Key issues and recommendations for enhancing effective, inclusive and equitable governance Barbara Nakangu, Seline Meijer, Nyamaka Kasukura and Doyi Mazenzele
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, 2020
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
Published by: IUCN Global Programme on Governance and Rights, Washington, DC, United States
Copyright: © 2020 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non- commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: Nakangu, B. Meijer, S. Kasukura, N. Mazenzele, D. (2020). Natural Resource Governance in the Sumbawanga Cluster of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania: Key issues and recommendations for enhancing effective, inclusive and equitable governance. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Cover photo: Meijer Seline, IUCN
Layout by: Jamie Wen and Alix Kashdan, IUCN
Available from: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature Global Programme on Governance and Rights 1630 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC, United States
Acronyms
AMCOS Agriculture and Marketing Cooperatives Societies CEESP Commission of Environmental, Economic and Social Policy CCRO Certificates of Customary Rights of Ownership CSO Civil Society Organisation JFM Joint Forest Management IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRGF Natural Resource Governance Framework MSD Multi-stakeholder Dialogue MSP Multi-stakeholder Platform MSF Multi-stakeholder Forum OSF Open Society Foundations REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania SNV Netherlands Development Organisation SUSTAIN-Africa Sustainability and Inclusion Strategy for Growth Corridors in Africa TFS Tanzania Forest Service VLUP Village Land Use Plans VFC Village Forest Committee VNRC Village Natural Resources Forum Committee WMA Wildlife Management Areas WUA Water User Association
i
Acknowledgments
Barbara Nakangu and Seline Meijer of the IUCN Global Programme on Governance and Rights collaborated with the SUSTAIN-Africa programme team in Tanzania to prepare this report. The SUSTAIN-Africa team included Doyi Mazenzele, IUCN Tanzania Programme Officer and Nyamaka Kasukura, former Coordinator of SUSTAIN-Africa Programme at SNV in Tanzania. We acknowledge support of Saruchera Davison, IUCN Acting Technical Coordinator for the Water Programme in East and Southern Africa; Jenny Springer, Director of the IUCN Global Programme on Governance and Rights; and Jessica Campese, CEESP Co-Chair of the NRGF Working Group who reviewed the report and provided input. We also express sincere gratitude to all government staff, NGO staff, village leaders and the men and women engaged in the focus group discussions who provided views and experiences captured in this report. We are grateful for the Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Netherlands for financing the SUSTAIN-Africa Programme. Finally, we acknowledge the funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) that enabled this analysis.
ii
Executive Summary
Overview of SUSTAIN-Africa and the NRGF Assessment
Open Society Foundations (OSF) funded this natural resource governance assessment of the Sumbawanga landscape in Tanzania through the project “Integrating a Rights-Based Approach (RBA) in SUSTAIN-Africa to enhance social and economic inclusion in agricultural growth corridor development.” The assessment was based on the interventions of the “Sustainability and Inclusion Strategy for Growth Corridors in Africa” (SUSTAIN-Africa) programme. It aims to reveal the extent to which the programme engaged the opportunities and challenges for local peoples’ participation in decision -making and the gaps that remain. While the report is based on the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, it is not an evaluation of the programme itself. Rather, the programme is used as a vantage point from which to understand and assess the context of natural resourcesgovernance of Sumbawanga and the ways in which to improve inclusivity, equity and rights of stakeholders such as smallholder farmers, agro-pastoralists, fishers and artisinal miners who are often at risk of marginalisation when large private sector initiatives are prioritised. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme provides a practical lens through which to make the analysis and recommendations. The study builds on a similar one carried out in Ilemi-Kilombero Cluster in 2017, which included reflections on the broader governance context of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SACGOT) landscape.1
The primary purpose of this analysis is to inform the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme and ensure that it empowers smallholder farmers and resource users (such as agro-pastoralists, fishers and artisanal miners) to participate in enhancing decisions and actions about the governance of resources as reflected in the NRGF.
The aim of SUSTAIN is to enhance the security of peoples’ livelihoods and advance entrepreneurial opportunities by securing rights and equity in decision-making. This is particularly important in a context where large private sector capital investments are being attracted to the Sumbawanga landscapes, as they will reshape the power dynamics and decision-making context.
The Natural Resource Governance Framework (NRGF) was developed by IUCN to guide decision makers at all levels to make better and more just decisions on the use of natural resources and the distribution of nature’s benefits, following 10 good governance principles.
At its core, the NRGF promotes the centring of the societal groups at risk of marginalisation in decision-making by balancing power between rights-holders, duty bearers and other stakeholders. This balance is achieved when these groups actively participate procedurally and substantively in decision-making about landscape management, determining use and distribution of costs and benefits. Drawing on rights-holders’ diverse values, traditions, knowledge and culture and ensuring that decision-making platforms are accessible enhances marginalised peopless power in natural resource governance in the landscape. Ten NRGF principles and their associated criteria guide the analysis.
1 NRGF (2017). Natural Resources Governance in Kilombero Cluster and the SAGCOT Initiative: An Assessment of Key Issues and Recommendations for Action. Report prepared by CEESP and IUCN.
1 Key Improvements in the Sumbawanga Landscape Enabled by the SUSTAIN- Africa Programme
This analysis focuses on the Sumbawanga cluster of the SAGCOT. This cluster has no large private sector actors and investments, as is the case in the Ilemi and Kilombero clusters, and hence the governance interventions considered aim at enhancing the preparedness of society to shape future investments.
The Kilombero study shows that Tanzania has established a relatively sound policy and legal framework that provides a fairly favourable foundation for enabling inclusive and equitable governance, primarily in village land, albeit with some limitations. The major challenge lies with the implementation of these legal and policy provisions. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme enabled the implementation of a number of key policies in Sumbawanga and established the structures that provide the basis for enhanced participation of rights-holders in decision-making. In particular, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme enhanced the following NRGF principles:
Principle 1: Inclusive Decision-Making. According to the Kilombero study, the policy and legal framework for enabling inclusive participation is adequate, but weakly implemented. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported the implementation of favourable policy and legal provisions to enhance the effectivenss of participatory decision-making in land, water and forest management. In particular, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme contributed to establishing the following platforms in the Sumbawanga landscape:
1. Two platforms for decision-making on water resources governance: Water User Associations (WUA) and Catchment Management Committees (CMC). WUA and CMC enable local people in over 90 villages to participate in and influence decisions made by the Lake Rukwa Basin Board. 2. Platforms for making decisions on forest management: The programme supported the development of 17 Village Forest Management Committees (VFMC), and also worked with villages bordering the Kalambo Nature Reserve to establish a Joint Forest Management Committee (JFMC) of the Kalambo forest. 3. Sixteen cooperatives and farmers groups: SUSTAIN helped strengthen these groups in the region as platforms for collective engagement with the private sector and policy makers to shape the production and market chains of crops grown in the landscape. 4. Two regional multi-stakeholder forums in Rukwa and Katavi were established in the landscape. These forums provide opportunities to enhance coordination with the wider society across the landscape to hold holistic and collective discussions on key challenges and influence decisions across multiple sectors and levels.
While the establishment of these platforms represents important progress, achieving inclusive decision-making will require further improvement in enabling participation of most rights-holders. Enhanced participation reduces risks of appropriation of local benefits by powerful interests (who may align with higher level authorities). The analysis shows most people are not yet engaged in making key decisions, despite the establishment of platforms. Systems of communication between representatives and the wider community is inadequate, especially for determining substantive decisions on rules and regulations, costs, benefits and accountability. Updates from representatives primarily focus on providing information on rules made at higher- level platforms, with less attention paid to collective decision-making by society. Most importantly, because the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was implemented in a relatively small area, the platforms need to be replicated across the entire landscape in order to scale up inclusivity and rights-based decision-making.
Principle 2: Recognition and Respect for Tenure Rights. The Kilombero study shows that existing laws include provisions for securing collective and individual rights on village land, including for women. The field analysis further shows that children can be included in land titles.
2
The SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported the implementation of two key legal provisions that can contribute to securing local peoples’ land rights. These efforts resulted in the creation of seven Village Land Use Plans (VLUPs) and the issuance of 1,031 certificates of customary rights of ownership (CCROs)2 to people in those villages. This foundation is crucial for enhancing the rights of the people in relation to ownership, transfer and land use changes.
However, it is important to note that both VLUPs and CCROs can strengthen or undermine land rights, depending on how they are used. More improvement is needed, especially in diversification of rights that form the basis of decision-making on land use. Additional changes are needed to shorten the process of negotiating rights, a process which currently takes a prohibitively long time. The analysis shows that some vulnerable populations were overlooked, including some religious groups, women in polygomous relationships and people involved in certain economic activities such as mining. The lack of attention paid to these issues has led to tensions and may risk new forms of marginalisation in areas where SUSTAIN-Africa will have future interventions.
Principle 4: Appropriate Devolution of Authority. The policy framework provides for devolution of natural resources management. Supporting devolution was one of the greatest achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, as SUSTAIN helped establish the structures highlighted above at the lowest level of governance in the intervention areas. The majority of the local communities in the project sites now have enhanced access to duty bearers and other stakeholders for decision-making about key resources that they need for their livelihoods and enterprises. However, a key requirement for good governance is to use the platforms to achieve ongoing improvements in the process of decision-making between representatives and the majority of rights- holders. The majority must have access to the platforms, which can be achieved by enhancing the transparency of developing the agendas for meetings, the processes of meetings and the outcomes of decision-making (especially around collective and individual well-being). Transparency of the process can be enhanced through interactive media and representation. Transparency of decision-making will also enhance the value and legitimacy of the structures.
Principle 6: Coordination and Coherence: The SUSTAIN-Africa programme contributed to enhancing the horizontal and vertical coordination of governance of forests, water and cooperatives. For example, for water governance, rights-holders in different villages now engage through WUAs, catchment platforms and water boards. However, improving access to and use of the platforms by the majority, as already indicated, will be necessary to SUSTAIN-Africa and extend this coordination across the entire landscape.
Remaining Opportunities to Enhance Governance in the Sumbawanga Landscape Principle 3: Recognition and Respect for Diverse Cultures. The analysis reveals that most decision-making processes in the landscape across all sectors primarily rely on modern scientific or economic knowledge systems and less on the local experiences, traditions, values and knowledge systems of the diverse rights- holders in the landscape. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme implementation should significantly enhance the use of local knowledge and systems as the source of rights-holders’ power to organise and shape decisions and ideas on the various project interventions and natural resources management. Use of local knowledge and systems helps to minimise the risk of marginalisation of societies and their experiences, and enhances the collective design of feasible solutions for governance and ecological challenges. It also enhances motivation for community ownership, belonging and stewardship in landscape management.
2 Focus group discussions revealed that not all the farmers had acquired their CCROs, but most were in process.
3 Principle 5: Strategic Vision, Direction and Learning. The analysis shows that the region’s plans are driven by the SAGCOT strategic framework. This framework is the reference and mandate that guides governments in the region to coordinate development action. The SAGCOT strategy recommends the integration of environmental and social safeguards. The region also has two platforms for political and technical leaders to meet annually and discuss development and natural resources management issues. However, the main gap is that the quarterly regional platform on natural resources that informs the wider regional meeting is rarely convened due to low funding. In addition, the multi-stakeholder platform initiated by SUSTAIN-Africa did not take off because of funding gaps. The most crucial weakness is that most rights-holders and other stakeholders have limited knowledge of and access to these higher level platforms.
These platforms have the potential to complement and expand the space for decision-making and accountability, especially for those groups obscured or excluded from lower platforms. Improving access to these platforms is important to address in the second phase of SUSTAIN-Africa in order to enhance vertical and horizontal coordination, accountability, and overall empowerment of rights-holders to influence high-level decisions.
The regional platform can be convened in coordination with quarterly reflections on the implementation of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme. SUSTAIN quarterly reflections can also catalyse the systematic and consistent convening of representatives from local platforms to participate in discussion and decisions about landscape management (such as costs and benefit-sharing) and account to the public. Innovative strategies to enhance access of the majority to the regional platforms should be used, such as interactive radio and phones, and can enhance transparent discussions about the schedule, agenda and outcomes before and after regional meetings. The majority of the people are likely to engage and influence the use of platforms if they acknowledge the platforms as another space where their rights and issues are responded to and accounted for by duty bearers.
Principle 7: Sustainable Resources and Benefit-Sharing. This was one of the key challenges of governance in the landscape that the SUSTAIN-Africa programme made efforts to address, though gaps remain. National- level funding sources are provided for in the law but are weakly used or are inaccessible (such as the tree fund, water fund, wildlife fund and REDD+ funding). In addition, the rights-holders only weakly participate in making decisions about the generation and use of revenue collected from the landscape, such as fines and the 20 per cent benefit-sharing for water, wildlife or forests managed by the central government.
There are key opportunities to improve revenue and benefit-sharing, especially around accessing revenue generated from the landscape or through NGOs. However, sustainable resources and benefit-sharing requires society to have the capacity to collectively and substantively discuss and agree on how individual and collective benefits and costs are mapped, generated and shared. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme has already helped facilitate this process by establishing platforms for inclusive decision-making. These platforms should be used to facilitate a collective reflection on individual and collective costs and benefits and to design an innovative model for generating revenue and benefit-sharing that is linked to management. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can provide a catalyst intervention, such as funding, around which these discussions should be based.
Principle 8: Accountability. The analysis shows that representatives and duty bearers at the WUAs, VFMC, CMC and cooperatives remain weakly accountable to the wider society about decisions on resource management approaches and the use of revenue generated. It is critical to note that technical officers regularly carry out training and information-sharing on rules and laws around resources management and updates on revenue use, but often these trainings are generalised, difficult to understand or presented to just a few people.
4 Thus, accountability is often largely symbolic and does not invoke active engagement of the society to positively or negatively sanction representatives.
Principle 9 and Principle 10: Fair and Effective Rule of Law and Access to Justice and Conflict Resolution. The analysis shows that Tanzania has an adequate legal framework for legal justice, and most of the population is aware about provisions, structures and processes for seeking redress. The challenge in the local context is that there is a lack of incentives or sanctions to enforce the various laws. The processes for seeking redress are weak, especially at higher levels, because of the time and costs involved. It was also not clear that cultural systems were drawn upon. This is a crucial area where the SUSTAIN-Africa programme can help strengthen effective sanctioning (positive and negative) of representatives by ensuring that decision- making about programme interventions, accountability and grievance mechanisms is through the formal structures that have been established or strengthened by the programme.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, the analysis shows that the SUSTAIN-Africa programme made significant contributions to enhancing the necessary foundation for effective natural resources governance in Sumbawanga. In particular, the programme helped improve inclusion and made efforts to propel the local community and smallholders towards sustainable development. This foundation mainly enhances the capacity of smallholder farmers to make decisions about land management, use and development.
A key recommendation is that the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme should be designed in a way that ensures that decisions on implementation approaches and accountability are made through established structures. Decisions should enable the participation of majority rights-holders and demonstrate the practice of equitable benefit-sharing, vertical and horizontal coordination, accountability and integration of local knowledge in decision-making. In other words, SUSTAIN-Africa implementation should be used to co-create and explore solutions jointly with rights-holders by enabling them to draw on their knowledge and the established systems rather than use prescribed solutions from above.
The Sumbawanga cluster is rich in biodiversity. Giraffe in Katavi National Park (IUCN).
5
Table of Contents
Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………. ii Executive summary………………………………………………………………………………..... 1 1. Introduction………………………………………………………….…………………………… 7 1.1 About the SUSTAIN-Africa programme…………………..……………………………... 8 1.2 Context and scope of the analysis.…………………………………………………….… 8 1.3 Ecological significance of the region…………………………………………………...... 9 2. Assessment method and analysis ……………………………………………………………. 11 3. Findings.………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 3.1 Brief summary of the governance context reflected in the Kilombero study………... 12 3.2 The Sumbawanga governance report……………………………………………………. 13 4. NRGF analysis…………………………………………………………………………………... 15 5. Conclusions.…………………………………………………………………………………….. 39 References.…………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 Annexes.………………………………………………………………………………….…………. 42 Annex 1: Stakeholder mapping of actors to consider by the SUSTAIN-Africa programme in the Sumbawanga cluster………………………………………….. 42 Annex 2: Table of NRGF principles and criteria…………………………………………….. 44 Annex 3: Analysis of SUSTAIN-Africa Programme in Sumbawanga……………………... 47 Annex 4: Analysis of the intervention to establish WUAs………………………………….. 53 Annex 5: NRGF study field trip report – Sumbawanga ...………………………………….. 55
6
1. Introduction
Governance helps determine the extent to which a NRGF defines governance as the programme realises inclusion, equity and rights. IUCN norms, institutions and processes that established the Natural Resource Governance Framework determine how power and (NRGF) as guidance for decision-makers at all levels to make responsibilities over natural resources better and more just decisions on the use of natural resources are exercised, how decisions are taken, and the distribution of nature’s benefits, following good and how citizens – including women, men, youth, indigenous peoples and governance principles. local communities – participate in and benefit from the management of natural In particular, IUCN promotes the use of the NRGF to enhance resources (adapted from Graham et al. comprehensive and systematic understanding of what 2003). effective and equitable natural resource governance is and to enable conservation agents to carry out comprehensive, consistent and coherent assessments, planning and evaluation of governance contexts or programmes. It follows a recognition that poor governance is an impediment to effective and equitable natural resources conservation and attainment of sustainable livelihoods.
The NRGF was used as a reference to reflect on the Sustainability and Inclusion Strategy for Growth Corridors in Africa (SUSTAIN-Africa) programme in order to determine ways to improve the effectiveness and equity of natural resource governance in the landscape and to achieve sustainable economic growth that is equitable and rights-based.
Open Society Foundations (OSF) funded the analysis. The focus is on smallholder farmers, especially women and other marginalised groups. The aim is to enhance equitable participation in shaping and benefiting from the economic opportunities created in the growth corridors, while securing rights to access and use natural resources. It also aims to enhance the development of entrepreneurial pathways to generate more value from the land, water and ecosystem resources that underpin agricultural-, forest- and wetland-based livelihoods. Particularly, the OSF funding helps IUCN address one of the key recommendations of the evaluation of the first phase of SUSTAIN-Africa: to develop a strategy for equity and inclusion that reflects joint decision-making and benefit-sharing as a key outcome of the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme. In other words, the key focus is to create enabling conditions that substantively and procedurally balance the position of men and women at the local level with that of private sector and government agents in making decisions on landscape management approaches and the distribution of costs and benefits.
This analysis focuses on the Sumbawanga cluster of the SAGCOT3 and draws on a similar study in the Kilombero cluster4 undertaken in 2017, which highlights the governance context of Tanzania. Both reports provide a reference for the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme to establish baselines, strategies for action and indicators of change to track the process and substance of achieving effective, equitable and sustainable governance.
3 The SAGCOT is a large-scale, public-private partnership launched by the government of Tanzania in 2010 to achieve commercially successful agribusiness to enhance economic growth of the area. It is located along the infrastructure backbone of the country along the eastern and southern border. SAGCOT covers a third of the country. 4 NRGF (2017). Natural Resources Governance in Kilombero Cluster and the SAGCOT Initiative: An Assessment of Key Issues and Recommendations for Action. Report prepared by CEESP and IUCN.
7 1.1 About the SUSTAIN-Africa programme
SUSTAIN-Africa is a ten-year initiative, begun in 2014 and funded by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Netherlands. The programme aims at “facilitating green growth that is inclusive and climate resilient” in identified development corridors. SUSTAIN supports the integration of water, land and ecosystem management with sustainable business to demonstrate Inclusive Green Growth (IGG) under an integrated landscape approach.
The first five years of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme were implemented in Sumbawanga and Ihemi- Kilombero ‘clusters’ in the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) and in the Magoe, Cahora Bassa and Marara districts of the Zambezi Valley in Mozambique. SUSTAIN helped establish and strengthen the institutions that enable rights-holders’ participation in shaping the economic development that safeguards and enhances their livelihoods and the ecosystem services in the landscapes. In the Sumbawanga cluster, the programme covers six districts, three municipal councils and 38 villages.
The goal of the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme is to achieve “climate-resilient integrated landscape development that balances economic growth with ecosystem stewardship and social prosperity.” It has three main objectives: To increase investment in healthy ecosystems and sustainable business. To generate climate-resilient livelihoods for women and men. To incentivise better practices by business and smallholders.
This report makes strategic recommendations for enhancing the comprehensiveness, consistency and coherence of governance to ensure that inclusion, equity and rights are part of the programme, as they are critical for achieving sustainability of programme outcomes.
1.2 Context and scope of the analysis
This analysis is based on the SUSTAIN-Africa interventions that were carried out in the Sumbawanga cluster. The project interventions provide a lens through which to understand the governance context, the contributions of the project and opportunities to strengthen governance.
The analysis takes into account two significant changes in the context of implementing the SAGCOT initiative since its launch in 2010: First, the Tanzanian government withdrew its matching grant of $47M to the World Bank loan of $70M for establishing the SACGOT institutional framework and developing smallholder business linkages to private sector opportunities. This has led to a change in circumstances in which the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was designed, in particular a reduction in government power to influence private sector actors to follow sustainable and inclusive business strategies. Thus, the main power of the state during SUSTAIN was state policy and legal mandates to regulate the private sector within the free market. Second, the SAGCOT programme roll-out was slower than initially envisoned. This paper shows that the reduced pace presents an opportunity to use the extra time to strengthen the capacity of the diverse local communities and entrepreneurs to substantively and procedurally participate in shaping and benefiting from SAGCOT developments (despite the now-anticipated delay in achieving these economic opportunities).
8 The areas covered by SAGCOT have a population of 1,569,1425 that largely engages in agro-pastoral livelihood activities, micro business and artisanal mining. The region does not have significant private sector development, as in the Kilombero and Ilemi clusters, and SAGCOT has no permanent office in the region. NGO partners such as AGRA and the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) are advancing the SAGCOT vision, and they work with the few small agricultural companies in the area such as EMPIEN, MSIPAZ and Nondo investors. Thus, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme provided local stakeholders with an opportunity to proactively empower and prepare rights-holders to participate actively and substantively in shaping a growth trajectory of the region as envisioned by SAGCOT strategies that incoming private sector actors can follow.
1.3 Ecological significance of the region
The Sumbawanga cluster has 12 Central Forest Reserves, 13 Village Forest Reserves,6 one Nature Reserve and three river systems (Rwiche, Katuma and Kalambo) that include the Kalambo Falls. Four landscapes make up the cluster, and these were the basis for selecting the study sites. They include: Sumbawanga-Mtowisa: characterised by a high deforestation rate from the clearing of land for farming and high competition for water resources by upstream and downstream users. Kate-Chala (Nkasi DC): marked by migration of a large number of cattle, which creates conflicts between farmers and pastoralists, as well as environmental degradation (i.e. water and land resource mismanagement, River Mfui). Kassanga-Matai (Kalambo district): lies in the Ufipa plateau, stretching to the Lake Tanganyika shore. Challenged with a fast-growing population and massive deforestation for charcoal production. Kassanga port provides a gateway to neighbouring countries, namely Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. Mwese-Mwankululu (Katavi region): where the source of the Katuma River is located, and has crucial ecosystem connections to Katavi National Park.
The main interventions of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme were led by SNV. The following formed the basis of the governance analysis to determine the contributions of the programme to addressing the weaknesses and gaps that remain.
SUSTAIN-Africa programme intervention Sample study site Established three Water User Associations (WUAs) and catchment Dirifu Village, Mpanda management plans in the Rukwa basin to enhance the inclusive and Municipality equitable management and use of the water systems. Faciliated seven Village Land Use Plans, established seven village forest Nkugwi and Mnyagala villages reserves and enabled 1,031 individuals/households to acquire Certificates in Tanganyika District and in of Customary Ownership to secure their rights over land and enhance Kalambo effective management of the forests and landscapes.
Worked with Farmer Groups and Agriculture and Marketing Namanyere AMCOS, Nkasi Cooperatives societies (AMCOS) to enhance smallholder farmers’ access District to and benefit from economic opportunities. Engaged the private sector (contract farming of sunflowers) to enhance Nondo Investor, Mpanda smallholder farmers’ access to inputs and markets. Municipality
5 Drawn from the Tanzania 2012 Census report. 6 SUSTAIN-Africa supported the establishment of eight of these village forest reserves.
9 Held a multi-stakeholder landscape forum to coordinate planning and Rukwa Regional Government decision-making at landscape level. and NGOs Representatives, Sumbawanga Facilitated the establishment of the Kalambo Nature Reserve7 and Joint Kalambo Forest Nature Forest Management Committee to enhance protection of the Forest. Reserve Supported Rukwa Basin board to enhance the coordinated governance Lake Rukwa Basin Authority of water resources. Made additional interventions to promote climate smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers.
7 Two independent forest reserves, separated by a buffer, were merged into one by relocating some communities (about 5,000 people considered intruders) to create the Kalambo Nature Forest Reserve with a higher PA status. It was approved through parliament.
10
2. Assessment Method and Analysis
IUCN staff Barbara Nakangu and Seline Meijer (from the Global Programme on Governance and Rights, GPGR) and Doyi Mazenzele (from the IUCN Tanzania office) worked with Kasukura Nyamaka (former staff of SNV who coordinated the SUSTAIN-Africa programme) to undertake the participatory assessment.8 The NRGF was the reference for the assessment and analysis. For each site, the team convened focus group discussions of about 15-20 men and women to collectively map the different stakeholders and analyse the extent to which differentiated rights-holders participated in shaping the decisions of the interventions and the outcomes of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme (Annex 1 provides focus group details).
The discussions followed the 10 NRGF principles Box 1. NRGF Principles (Box 1). For each principle, facilitators used a 1. Inclusive decision-making checklist of criteria to trigger and guide free discussions. Each participant explained their 2. Recognition and respect for tenure rights perspective on governance status and the extent to 3. Recognition and respect for diverse cultures and knowledge systems which their roles, views and perspectives shaped the performance of the project. Varying perspectives 4. Appropriate devolution of authority were explored to determine underlying reasons for 5. Strategic vision, direction and learning the differences. Areas of agreement, and reasons 6. Coordination and coherence thereof, were also highlighted. Each focus group 7. Sustainable and equitably shared discussion concluded with a reflection on key issues resources (including differences in opinions), a conclusion from 8. Accountability the meeting and recommendations going forward. 9. Fair and effective rule of law The group reflections enhanced collective awareness 10. Access to justice and conflict resolution of areas of agreement and difference. They also explored challenges, opportunities and possible Source: Springer et al 2019 solutions based on differences and status.
The analysis shows that the governance of the programme itself and each project intervention are critical components and opportunities to improve the governance of the landscape. Any programme intervention can reshape power dynamics by the choices made about the institutions, processes and actors it engages for the implementation approach. Choosing to implement the programme through established but weak governance platforms may contribute to strengthening and legitimising them if the weaknesses are analysed and addressed. However, working through these platforms without assessing and engaging their weaknesses may deepen inequalities that they perpetuate. Similarly, circumventing weak platforms only postpones the problem that in turn affects the sustainability of the interventions of the programme.
The strengths and limitations of the governance context of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, and the impacts of the programme on local governance, are discussed in the following sections.
8 See Annex 5 for details of fieldwork.
11
3. Findings
This section draws on the Kilombero study, which provides the governance context of the region. The section reflects the extent to which the SUSTAIN-Africa programme as a whole influenced the governance of the landscape, particularly the extent to which it contributes to addressing structures and relations of inequality in participation in decision making about management and use of resources. At the core of the analysis was the evaluation of the extent to which the rights holders know about the institutions, how they access them, and the extent to which they participate in decisions about management or sanctioning duty bearers.
This report includes annexes of more detailed analysis of the project as a whole and one of the interventions (WUA) to demonstrate that the NRGF can also be used to analyse and guide a particular intervention to achieve inclusivity and equity (see Annex 2 and 3).
3.1 Summary of the governance report for the Kilombero cluster
The Kilombero assessment was used as background that also pertains to the governance context in Sumbawanga. It shows that Tanzania has established legal and policy frameworks that can enable fairly inclusive and equitable natural resource governance and management within village land, including with recognition of women’s and men’s equal land rights. This is in part because village governments (including the village assembly) have broad decision-making authority regarding local land and resources, including for village bylaws and land use plans addressing natural resource access and use.
Policy and legal options for inclusive natural resource governance in other land categories is far more limited, though the Environmental Management Act supports some broad participation. This enables, among other things, public consultation in EIAs.
Sector laws also support community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) on village land and, in some cases, other land categories. The nature and degree of a community’s power (and benefits) vary across these arrangements, with some tending to illustrate devolved management and implementation responsibilities, with less evidence of empowered decision-making. On the whole, policy pathways for inclusive, empowered governance outside of village land are more limited. CBNRM options include, but are not limited to: Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) of village, group or individual reserves on village land. Joint Forest Management (JFM), in which local communities contribute to forest management on reserve land under benefit-sharing agreements with the relevant government body. Beach Management Units (BMUs), in which community members manage local fisheries (which may or may not be on village land) under an agreement with the Director of Fisheries. Water User Associations (WUAs), which help manage local irrigation systems or other water resources, including allocating resources among members. Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), in which a community-based organisation (an Authorised Association) helps to manage and collect benefits from wildlife on land from one or several villages.
The Kilombero report also highlights challenges in the implementation of most of the legal and policy provisions for inclusive governance. For example, while VLUPs are meant to be developed by village residents through inclusive, facilitated processes, they are also political processes. Both literature and direct accounts from local actors suggest that, in practice, the process is often not given sufficient time and is strongly influenced by the interests of the most powerful actors, including district authorities, NGO staff or other
12 facilitating actors. The voices and rights of marginalised or vulnerable people may, therefore, not be well reflected in the resulting plan. VLUPs can also be difficult to adapt to changing circumstances and are often poorly coordinated across the landscape.
Meanwhile, CBNRM arrangements, while providing important opportunities, are often technically challenging and expensive to establish in practice, which has limited their expansion in some areas. This includes CBFM, which has the potential to bring substantial benefits to the community once established and maintained. JFM agreements have also been widely found to be difficult to establish in practice, and tend to generate fewer benefits for participating communities.
In several instances, challenges for inclusive governance involve a combination of policy and implementation issues. For example, experience with WMAs suggest that, while some communities benefit in important ways, WMAs’ inter-village structure and the powerful roles of authorities from other levels of government are among the factors limited WMAs’ accountability and ability to deliver benefits for member villages. Despite these challenges, the CBNRM options in Tanzanian law provide a strong platform for pursuing more equitable and inclusive natural resource governance, and progress on their implementation continues.
Other major challenges identified in the Kilombero assessment include local people having limited information about (and, in some cases, limited empowered access to) natural resource rights and governance processes. The assessment also identified weaknesses in systems of accountability, grievance mechanisms and coordination across different levels of governance. For example, village residents reported that the ‘chain’ of responsibilities between village game scouts (VGS), village government and district government is often broken, so that when VGS attempt to enforce natural resource bylaws or management plans, their efforts are undermined by inaction at higher levels. There were different views on whether the cause of inaction is low capacity, poor coordination and/or corruption. However, it was clear that this ‘broken chain’ can de-motivate local-level institutions responsible for implementation and can lead to a sense that village residents’ substantive participation in the formation of bylaws is undermined because the laws cannot be enforced. These limitations help explain some of the persistent inequalities and disputes about access, use and benefit-sharing of land and resources.
The opportunities and limitations presented by different natural resource governance arrangements in Tanzania raise challenging questions about where and how programmes like SUSTAIN can best focus their efforts. This analysis takes into account the extent to which the SUSTAIN-Africa programme contributed to enhancing the strengths and addressing the challenges highlighted in the Kilombero report within the Sumbawanga landscape. Thus, this report also complements and updates the Kilombero study on the governance aspects specific to the intervention areas of the project in Sumbawanga.
3.2 The Sumbawanga governance report
The SUSTAIN-Africa programme followed a landscape approach in its implementation. It covered vast areas, and engaged varied rights-holders and duty bearers in decisions about landscape governance, management and benefits. Though the approach helped enable sustainable management of shared natural resources transcending administrative jurisdictions, it created challenges for achieving inclusion and equity (as this report shows).
One positive aspect of the implementation approach taken by the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was the choice to work through the mandated governance structures. This was a key step in creating sustainable enabling conditions for the inclusive and equitable participation of rights-holders in decision-making, especially for
13 marginalised people. The analysis below shows how this foundation of governance achieved through the first phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme should be enhanced by addressing the weaknesses that remain.
The generalised analysis below is for the entire programme implementation in the Sumbawanga Cluster, though it also reflects on individual project interventions. The main aim is to show that each intervention provides an important basis for improving governance as much as the total sum of the project. Thus, there is a need to mainstream the governance intervention across the entire project. Note that the analysis in this report is not an evaluation of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme interventions in Sumbawanga. Rather, it is a lens through which to reflect on the strengths and gaps of the governance context. Using the NRGF, the SUSTAIN- Africa programme helps to reflect on how an initiative can be used to address governance challenges and enhance opportunities.
The analysis and report follow the 10 NRGF principles to ensure that the presentation is comprehensive, coherent and consistent. Criteria explain each principle and reveal how rights and equity are at the core of the analysis and reflection. A summary of strengths, gaps and recommendations (in tabular form) has been provided at the start of each principle, followed by a detailed description.
Women waiting for a village meeting in Mpanda (IUCN).
14
4. NRGF Analysis
Principle 1: Inclusive Decision-Making
“Decision-making regarding natural resource policies and practices is based on the full and effective participation of all relevant actors, with particular attention to the voice and inclusion of rights-holders and groups at risk of marginalisation” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. Tanzanian 1. Established institutions for inclusive 1. Use established structures to policies and legal decision-making are still few, make collective and frameworks can especially for villages without VLUP transparent decisions about enable inclusive and where WUAs have not been SUSTAIN-Africa interventions. governance and established. 2. Facilitate participatory rights-based 2. Process for inclusive decision- mapping of all categories of approaches on making – especially for marginalised rights-holders affected by each village land. groups – in the structures is weak. intervention. Pay more 2. Some key The process prioritises technical attention to gender and institutions that regulations from the central marginalised groups. can enable government, with limited flexibility 3. Use platforms (CMC, WUAs, collective to address local problems that arise. MSP) to facilitate collective decision-making Decisions weakly reflect the use of decisions on implementation are in place. Key local knowledge, experience, approach of the programme, among those context and history. There were and enable representatives supported by the tensions, which risk disengagement from all rights-holders to SUSTAIN-Africa of rights-holders and sabotage by regularly provide accountability programme are: those who feel marginalised. through the same platforms, WUAs 3. A clear mapping of the different especially about addressing VFMC categories of smallholder producers inequalities. CMC and the forms of inequality that exist 4. Use feedback sessions to Cooperatives among them was weakly considered discuss and addres challenges (such as differences in process and of achieving inclusion and requirements of access to and use of equity of different groups. land, access to and participation in 5. Publicise the process and particular markets, access to credit, substance of decision-making and access to distribution of inputs and feedback through and products prioritised for support). interactive radio and higher level platforms for political support and replication.
The emphasis of this principle is to make the participation of people with particular rights or reliance on natural resources central and active in decision-making. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa can contribute to making substantive and procedural rights clear because it enhances power, equity and effectiveness in decision- making. To achieve this principle, policies and laws should include robust provisions and regulations for inclusive decision-making. Platforms and processes for the participation of all rights-holders must be in place and they must be socially and cultural appropriate. Rights-holders must have adequate knowledge (both
15 traditional and scientific) and capacity on natural resources management to make decisions. Most important, the process must enable free prior informed consent of rights-holders.
For SUSTAIN-Africa I, Annex 1 indicates some of the key stakeholders and rights-holders affected by each intervention who need to participate in making decisions on the inclusive growth strategies of the landscape that sustains biodiversity. The list of stakeholders reflects the varied interests and different levels of power based on mandate, rights or funding. The stakeholders provide a basis for determining the extent to which the policy and legal provisions for managing natural resources enable their effective participation. It also enabled the assessment of power relations and inequalities that may exist. Each category of stakeholder should be considered in relation to age, gender, income and the entire population.
If inclusive participation is achieved, the interventions should enhance reflection of the views, knowledge, values, histories and experience of all rights-holders highlighted. Most rights-holders, especially those at risk of marginalisation, should find enhanced belonging and recognise the decisions made because they were involved and are aware about the decisions. The structures and processes of decision-making should enhance the balance of power of all stakeholders highlighted.
Strengths The natural resources governance and management policy and legal provisions of Tanzania are adequate for enabling inclusive participation of all rights-holders and marginalised groups, including women, within village land. The SAGCOT initiative is expected to apply these policies and laws in practice. The key frameworks used were: Land use laws – Land Act (1999),9 Village Act (1999) and Land Use Planning Act (2007) – make provisions for including the entire society, through village assemblies, in making decisions on land use in a village. Sectoral laws – Water Act (2009), Forestry (2002) and Wildlife (2013) – make provisions for participation in the management of reserved areas. Inclusive participation laws –Cooperatives Societies Act (2013) and regulations (2016) – make provisions and regulations for inclusive participation in decision-making.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme
Water resources management
The SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported the implementation of the Water Resources Act (2009) by strengthening the governance context of water management in the Rukwa Basin. SUSTAIN supported the establishment of a number of platforms that enable inclusive decision-making on water use, access, benefit-sharing and management.
The programme team coordinated the establishment of three platforms – Water User Associations (WUA),10 a Catchment Management Committee and a Catchment Forum – that enhance the capacity to engage with the Basin Board. Decision-making in these platforms contributes to addressing the unsustainable use and uncontrolled extraction of water that has risked the resilience of all water users, as well as addressing equity in sharing benefits and costs across use categories. These platforms also aim to
9 This has been under review since 2017. 10 The SUSTAIN-Africa programme established WUAs along Katuma, Msaginya and Mpanda Rivers in the Lake Rukwa Basin. Each WUA includes about 46 people representing about 50,000-70000 water users covering over seven wards and 31–40 villages. One of the WUAs controlled 10 large-scale water users and over 200 smaller permit holders for irrigation, watering livestock and majority domestic water users.
16 enhance the management of the catchment to reduce erosion and degradation. The WUA also, on behalf of the Basin authorities, enforces decisions through permits, fines, patrols and management interventions.
The formation of the WUAs was an important governance process. Village assemblies11 appointed representatives to attend a water users meeting to elect WUA leadership. People holding other responsibilities in the village government were not eligible, which expanded opportunities for representation. Each of the WUAs links to the 31–40 village assemblies within the given sub-catchment area. Thus, it is through their village assemblies and WUA meetings that the smallholder producers (pastoralists, fishers and farmers) can participate actively to shape water access and use.
The institutions described above are the main platforms through which representatives seek input and provide feedback to the different rights-holders on decisions about the management of different resources. However, the process of seeking input from different rights-holders seemed weak. The weakness of the governance context was related to the process of collecting input and views from different rights-holders and water users regarding decisions made by the representatives of the WUAs or the catchment committees across a vast area. This remains a challenge that the second phase of the SUSTAIN- Africa programme should analyse and address.
The WUA and VNRC facilitated processes to develop by-laws and held quarterly meetings to update populations on decisions reached. However, the analysis reveals that some representatives used the platforms to inform and discuss the domestication of technical guidelines of the laws and rules of water management, and there was less effort to enable them to decide and shape innovative rules based on local context. For example, by-laws on catchment management include provisions to manage rivers by leaving a 65-metre buffer and establishing costly concrete demarcations, or include fines and fees to enforce the maintenance of the rivers systems.12 More exploration with land owners is needed on developing more feasible solutions to establish the buffers while maintaining ownership rights, or with society on how to collectively generate, share and sustain benefits. These discussions are particularly important at the level of catchments committees13 and the Lake Rukwa Authority, where the majority of rights-holders have less access to decision-making and stakeholders include more powerful large-scale water users from the private sector, duty bearers and NGOs who often tilt decision-making away from rights-holders’ views and interests.
It is important to note that integration of local people’s views in decisions is challenging when decisions about individual and collective benefits are not transparently analysed and discussed as part of the responsibility and rights of management and law enforcement. At the platforms, decisions about generation and use of revenue were not adequately discussed, while enforcement of management rules received more attention. Discussions around revenue need to be enhanced and should include all stakeholders, especially rights-holders at risk of marginalisation. This should be achieved by using platforms to achieve innovative and accessible ways to maintain interactive discussions among the different rights-holders and between rights-holders and duty bearers. Improved tools such as radios and phones enhance the power and participation of the majority, and make governance platforms accessible to the majority. Interactive tools also enhance knowledge and engagement by making the agenda and issues of discussion at all platforms, the schedule of smeeting and feedback mechanisms transparent and accessible.
11 All adults in a village. 12 The SUSTAIN team in Tanzania noted cases where some buffers were planted with sisal plants, a cheaper option. 13 The programme supported the establishment of a Water Catchment Committee at Lake Katuma and the Lake Rukwa Basin Board. Representatives of the catchment committee were selected from the WUAs and other stakeholders that include private sector users, duty bearers, CSOs and development partners such as GIZ.
17
Forest management
SUSTAIN-Africa also supported the establishment of platforms for joint forest management in 17 villages which led to the development of the village land use plans. This intervention also contributed to strengthening the governance context in these particular areas of the landscape by implementing the Land Act (1999), Village Act (1999), Forest Act (2002) and regulations (2004) that have robust provisions for inclusive participation. Different rights-holders now have greater access to the committees to participate in making decisions about access, use, benefit-sharing and management of the forests. Rights-holders influence the decisions of the Village Natural Resources Committee through their Village Councils and Village Assemblies. In addition, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported the establishment of a Joint Forest Management platform from the 19 villages that surround the Kalambo Forest Reserve. This enables broad society to hold discussions with reserve managers on ways to manage, benefit from and protect the forest.
The main challenge for the forest management committees of the villages and for the Kalambo forest was that they did not effectively use the assemblies to make decisions about forest management. While the platforms were regularly used for information-sharing around decisions made by the central higher authority (e.g. with regards to benefit-sharing), the platforms were not effectively used to generate ideas that influence higher-level decisions. Hence, the two villages where focus group discussions were held reflect challenges with inclusion of most of the population in decision-making, despite the clear structures and processes for participation. Indeed, village forest committees were facing resistance and sabotage due to decisions made by the government and committees that some society members do not agree with.14 This may threaten the sustainability of the forest biodiversity and goods and services.
There were additional challenges in the Kalambo Forest Reserve, where the SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported a merging of two reserves to form one nature reserve.15 The merging process was initiated and finalised by the elites in NGOs and government officials; communities were engaged only after the designation process. Furthermore, the mergenecessitated the negotiated relocation of about 5,000 people to neighbouring plots of land outside the reserve. While a joint forest management committee was formed from the 19 village assemblies that border the reserve to include people in its management, a number of indicators of weak participation were noted: An anecdote at the focus group discussion was that 1,500 of the 5,000 people did not support the reserve because they lost land, and there was contestation in some of the new areas that were allocated for compensation because some of the land already had different owners.16 The TFS offered 575ha of reserve land for resettlement and 100ha from community land. At the focus group discussion, a number of people were not yet aware of how to access the new structures of reserve management and conditions or procedures for exercising their cultural and
14 See examples below, Box 1, 2 and 3.. 15 As communicated from the SNV coordinator, “SUSTAIN-Africa proposed to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and to the Local Government Authorities and Regional Government the need of improving the management of the Kalambo ecosystem, SUSTAIN-Africa proposed the merging of two forest reserves and to upgrade it to the Nature Reserve. With the cooperation with the Wildlife Conservation Society, District Authorities and Regional Commissioner and the Ministry, the Tanzania Parliament approved the bill. The next step was to establish the Nature Reserve Management Plan, which TFS took the lead. The procedure required to inform the village government and to present the proposal through the village government meetings then the ward, district and regional consultative meetings.” 16 The TFS representative at the meeting refuted this anecdote and noted that only eight people were disgruntled. However, this shows that the society are using these arguments to mobilise and draw attention to the tensions in the community that are destructive and can escalate.
18 access rights, despite the TFS and SUSTAIN-Africa programme making efforts to communicate this information. It was also clear that proper mapping of rights along cultural, religious, access and use did not fully guide decisions on management. Few people participated in making proposals that designated the nature reserve, and authoirities did not provide the community with clarity on decisions reached, apart from boundaries and restrictions to using the forest and falls. The meeting highlighted a particular religious sect that does not attend assemblies, and as a result may be marginalised by decisions made. More frequent and better structured engagement between TFS and the community through village assemblies is crucial. Most importantly, a participatory mapping of all rights holders is urgent.17 The elites, connected to the village government that had taken advantage of the weakness in TFS capacity to manage the falls and reserve, lost power and revenue from controlling the forest and falls when the PA category was strengthened. Elite loss of power presents a risk for forest management where capacity for patrol is still limited. It is crucial that the TFS use the JFM committees to mobilise collective support for the reserve to counter this threat and gain support from elites connected to the village government. TFS will achieve this when a process is in place for individual interests to be transparently articulated, discussed, decided upon and accounted for between majority of the society, duty bearers and other stakeholders. This would be most effective if carried out through the JFM and village assemblies, and complemented by interactive tools such as radio and phones, to agree on roles, responsibilities, benefits, etc. Access to and use of forests for smallholder farmers is crucial for their political economy because it secures livelihoods and enables households to focus on accumulation of income and investments. Hence, facilitating their participation in making decisions about the management of the forest is crucial to ensure they provide ideas on how to draw on their knowledge and systems.
Cooperatives and contract farming
SUSTAIN-Africa enhanced inclusion and equity by enhancing smallholders’ benefits from production and market chains through cooperatives and producer groups. As already indicated, the law provides robust guidelines for inclusive and equitable participation in cooperatives. SUSTAIN supported strengthening 17 cooperatives and 79 farmer groups, using these groups as governance platforms to enhance their negotiation power with private sector actors. The programme helped some of the cooperatives to negotiate contract farming arrangements, with inputs from suppliers and buyers of produce. The aim was to secure access to markets, inputs and credit for farmers. It is also important to ensure that contract farming arrangements do not risk locking producers in a dependent position, both for input supplies (seed and equipment) and product markets.
However, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme seemed to fit the framework that had been created by the private sector actors, rather than establishing a framework to enhance the power of smallholders to shape value chains. In the existing framework, smallholders’ power is limited, especially for diversifying and accessing supply and market chains that position them more powerfully as entrepreneurs. Furthermore, SUSTAIN-Africa primarily promoted improved varieties advanced by agro-input suppliers such as AGRA, and focused less on indigenous, traditional varieties. In the future, SUSTAIN should explore opportunities to enhance the power of smallholders to shape markets, including exploring other economic opportunities/models. For instance, smallholders can become entrepreneurs of products with cultural value, and they need access to credit that is not tied to inputs or products. Existing platforms should be
17 The TFS noted that the management planning process for the new nature reserve was halted, due to funding issues.
19 used to advance interventions that enhance access to inclusive financing, choices and power of farmers to shape production and scale.
Another challenge that the SUSTAIN-Africa programme revealed is the imbalanced resources of the cooperatives and farmer groups in the landscape. The poorest groups could not afford the membership fees needed to join stronger cooperatives – despite the fact that the policy for cooperatives includes provisions enabling all groups to join. This power imbalance reveals the risk of SUSTAIN supporting and advancing more powerful interests in society (through contract arrangements), and marginalising weaker groups.
There also seemed to be a weak framework for coordinated actions across the varied platforms, which further risks fragmentation and marginalising weaker groups. The challenge for programmes at the landscape level – including SUSTAIN-Africa and SAGCOT – is to establish and support a process where the majority of society has access to meet and interact with different cooperatives to explore and enhance ways in which inclusion, equity, accountability and sustainability are addressed. The second phase of SUSTAIN can enhance support to cooperatives to explore ways to implement inclusive policy provisions and broaden choices and opportunities for the majority of farmers, linked to their culture, knowledge, land and resources.
The Sumbawanga multi-stakeholder platform
The Rukwa and Katavi Regional Consultative Council is convened annually to hold district and regional planning meetings. Politicians and technocrats from the district, region and national levels, including MPs, attend the regional meeting, which is an important decision-making platform that shapes development and funding priorities. Quarterly sectoral regional meetings, where NGOs present reports of their actions to the government, inform this annual regional meeting. However, compared to other sectors, the regional environmental committee has struggled to convene partners on a quarterly basis. Consequently, issues linked to natural resources management and their effects on smallholder production are rarely discussed at the regional meeting.
On the other hand, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme initiated a multi-stakeholder platform at the landscape level in which various peoples’ representatives, private sector actors, NGOs and district- and national-level duty bearers convene. At the MSP, attendees engaged in a dialogue on critical issues and shaped implementation of the SUSTAIN programme. However, most rights-holders were not aware of the platform, which reflects limits in its inclusiveness.
Further, it was noted that the platforms convened by SUSTAIN-Africa were specific to particular issues or groups. For example, individual forums were convened around agricultural, natural resources or business issues, and each forum targeted different stakeholders, which fragmented the ways in which the key issues were discussed and addressed. Most smallholder farmers interface with all the different topics, and hence it would be beneficial to consider these issues holistically from the rights-holders’ point of view. It is crucial to create a consistent, multi-stakeholder forum that engages all pertinent issues, especially issues that cannot be resolved at the lower levels or that need to be supported and scaled up through policy and practice. Such a forum should be enhanced by including coordinated representation of rights-holders from the lower platforms. This MSP can coincide with the district and regional consultative councils to inform their agenda.
Working with representatives of rights-holders from the lower platforms at the landscape level, alongside NGO staff, strengthens representation of the majority and their access to the landscape forum. Majority
20 representation is also enhanced by representatives’ systematic and transparent consultation with the majority to both inform the platform and provide feedback on decisions reached. Further, transparency in establishing the agenda, discussion and the extent of feedback and follow-up on decisions will enhance the legitimacy and relevance of the platform. Transparency and effective participation of the majority can be enhanced through interactive media such as radio and phones.
The SUSTAIN-Africa programme should strengthen the quarterly meetings for the environment sector by using them to make decisions, enhance accountability about programme interventions, and establish a clear link with the majority through the participation of representatives from WUAs, Catchment Cooperatives, Village Committees and JFM Committees. Active participation of the majority should be complemented by a transparent discussion of the agenda, processes of decision-making and accountability of actions.
Gaps 1. Institutions for enabling inclusive participation are few and relatively new in the landscape. Few villages have VLUM or WUAs. Many marginalised groups are still excluded from some critical decision- making processes. Nonetheless, each village has VNRC, Village Councils and Village Assemblies which provides an important foundation for inclusive participation. 2. Decision-making at the Cillage Assemblies is largely controlled by representatives, with limited input from the majority of the population. 3. A significant number of decisions follow participatory guidelines dominated by technical prescriptions from the national level. These weakly reflect local knowledge, experience, context and history. As a result, some of the decisions only benefit particular categories of stakeholders at the expense of others. This risks causing some marginalised members of society to disengage from these platforms and, in extreme cases, sabotage the management of the resources. Three examples below illustrate this phenomenon. These examples explore the village forest committees at two of analysis sites, where a flawed management process had led to pockets of conflicts because some of the technical guidelines were not in line with peoples’ proposals, and less time was allotted for discussions and agreement.
Box 1. Example 1: Conflicts over grazing land at Mnyagala Village Population > 20,000, with 1400 households
The participatory village land use planning guidelines indicate that if a village has a huge number of animals, a grazing area must be established. Pastoralists supported this proposal. However, some community members argued that individual grazing areas should be established close to farms since areas earmarked for grazing were within settlements of other people. However, the planning team followed the guidelines provided and proposed the allocation of the land for grazing to pastoralists and proposed compensation for settlements. Each proposal was approved by the Village Vouncil and Assembly. However, the meeting to approve the plans was poorly attended (about 500 attended, out of a population of 20,000, and majority of atendees were pastoralists).The farmers residing in areas proposed for grazing did not attend the assembly as an act of resistance, and they rejected the compensation. Tensions had arisen as a result.
The planning committee could have extended the period of planning to resolve this problem, but this had cost implications, and so the committee prioritised a faster timeline. This limited time period forced the committee to follow technical guidelines to conclude the VLUP. This limited the inclusion of particular groups’ experience, values, and processes, and further limited inclusive discussions and decisions.
21
Similarly, it was noted at the focus group discussion that the richer strata in the villages seemed to support the approval of the VLUP, probably because it enabled them to acquire certificates of tenure, even if it was at the expense of the poorer majority who could not afford the fees. Issuance of certificates to some groups reduced the collective power of society to discuss and negotiate these varied and collective challenges through the assemblies. Overall, the rush to produce the VLUP risked the goal of the VLUP: equitable and inclusive re-distribution and security of land tenure.
Box 2. Example 2: Conflicts in Nkugwi Village over land buffering around the Katavi National Park
A conflict arose because the protected areas laws and guidelines indicated that a 500m buffer zone must be established between the new village boundaries and the reserve land. In essence, the guidelines promote maintaining a piece of general land under control of the Commissioner between reserve land and village land.
The VLUP guidelines imply compensation for landowners located in these areas. The challenge was that the owners of buffer land did not agree that there would be a difference in use and disagreed with areas of compensation. They had lived and bordered the PA for a long time. As above, conflicts arose between the planning team and the community, which stalled the VLUP. The team presented the plan to the Assembly and the district for approval, and the district moved to evict people from buffer areas before the disagreements were resolved. Tensions arose. The process of VLUP was finalised in 19 days. The tensions reflect shortcomings in inclusive discussions, reflecting history, context and experience.
Box 3. Example 3: Sabotage of river buffers
Whereas the Water Resources Management Act provides guidelines for water resources management, including demarcating buffers of the riverbanks and enforcing their wise use, this approach faced resistance because some people with land bordering the riverbanks felt they were losing valuable pieces of land when designated as a buffer. The decision by the WUA and endorsed by the Village Assembly to use the buffer zones for environmental projects (such as bee keeping as a source of funding for their operations) risked exacerbating the situation, as some landowners interpreted it as land grabbing. This may explain some of the sabotage of the activities such as moving or destroying the pillars that the WUA had installed to mark the buffer. The sabotage may also be an indicator of weak collective action, where the community did not claim responsibility for protecting the buffer, and instead saw buffer protection as part of the WUAs’ role. This reflects weaknesses in people’s motivation and non-involvement in determining management decisions, despite wide recognition of positive results achieved.
The majority of the population lauded the WUAs, VLUP, Village Forestry Management Committees and/or cooperatives as making successful interventions to enable inclusive and equitable access and benefit- sharing of water, forests and land. However, the three examples above indicate that there were some challenges as well. There are indicators of inequality that mainly stem from gaps in inclusive decision- making processes at the established platforms, and these risk undermining the potential of governance platforms. Enhancing the functionality and legitimacy of the platforms as accessible to all categories of rights-holders, especially those at risk of marginalisation, is crucial. For example, the platforms for producer groups and cooperatives at the village level are membership based and accessible only to people in a village who meet particular criteria. Using the Village Assembly as the platform through which to engage all smallholder producers across the different categories is crucial to seek innovative ways that enhance participation in production and market chains. Currently, working only through particular producer groups
22 or cooperatives and not linking these discussions through assemblies, seems to exclude some groups and in turn risks exacerbating inequalities.
Recommendations 1. Use the strengthened platforms such as WUAs and VUM to make decisions about SUSTAIN-Africa’s approaches to implementation. This would directly contribute to strengthening the processes for inclusive decision-making in the new structures by capitalising on high momentum and motivation for their use. SUSTAIN can address the weaknesses highlighted above by strengthening processes and capacitiesto include rights holders’ ideas and views in decisions. Ideas from scientific and local knowledge systems, culture, values and interests shoud be considered in decision-making. 2. Use tools such as radio to enhance transparency, preparedness and feedback to the majority of stakeholders. These tools enhance accessibility to platforms and majority influence on the decision- making process. 3. Contentious issues should form the basis of discussions at the platforms. Key issues are: conflicts between farmers and pastoralists, buffer zones, costs of CCRO and individual and collective costs and benefits of managing water resources and forests. Consideration of these key issues will motivate wider society to participate in decision-making at the platforms and to implement resolutions. The process should aim at collective exploration of the most feasible ways to reduce the costs of management and to enhance individual and collective benefits. 4. Regular mapping of differentiated rights in relation to interventions is crucial because rights change in time and space. Such changes, when undocumented, can lead to new forms of inequality. For example, the creation of the Kalambo Reserve risked marginalising the religious group that does not participate in village assemblies. The other example highlighted above illustrates how an incomplete process to allocate CCROs created a new structure with inequalities between those with and without secure land holding. The people without a CCRO risk their land being redistributed if not used in three years. Compensation should also consider multiple values – not just material, but also spiritual, cultural and identity-related. 5. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can catalyse a clear and transparent pattern, schedule and process of decision-making about its interventions through the platforms. This will enable society to plan and strategise on how to influence the processes through their representatives at the assemblies or the structures closest to them. Regular substantive and meaningful accountability by leaders to the public about decisions made at the platforms around project interventions enhances participation and legitimacy of the structures. The process of consultations should take advantage of multiple avenues to ensure that the views of all rights0holders are considered. Regular interface with representatives through the district assemblies or radio programmes should be encouraged. Interactive discussions at assemblies about the different resources should, where possible, align with calendars for other meetings (WUA, catchment or basin wide meetings or landscape MSD) to expand opportunities for society to contribute to decisions at these platforms. 6. Improve inclusive participation through the established structures. This addresses the assumption that structures are extensions of government control and enforcement rather than for inclusion of the community in decision-making.
23 Principle 2: Recognition and Respect for Tenure Rights
“Rights to lands, resources and waters are recognised and respected, with particular attention to the customary, collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and to women’s tenure rights” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. The Tanzanian 1. Few villages have VLUPs: 28 out 1. Use SUSTAIN-Africa interventions policies and laws of 55 implies large areas under to enhance participation in (especially the Land less secure tenure systems. implementation of VLUPs in ways Act and Village Act) 2. Despite guidelines that promote that draw on local knowledge and include provisions to the use of local knowledge, the views. secure land and participatory process seems to 2. Re-map rights-holders per resource use and have prioritised technical SUSTAIN interventions along such rights, including for guidelines. Local knowledge, common categories as gender and women, primarily on views and experience are income, in addition to livelihood village land. considered less. groups that are commonly used. 2. SUSTAIN-Africa 3. Some rights may be obscured; 3. Enhance awareness of rights, supported the e.g. land rights of women in mechanisms and processes for establishment of key polygamous marriages. claiming rights through platforms. mechanisms that can 4. Some rights were not 4. Enable/ empower representatives be used for securing considered because focus was and a majority of stakeholders to individual and on management of nature; for discuss challenges emerging from collective rights (7 example inequalities in mining. VLUPs and CCROs at assemblies VLUP and 1031 and higher-level structures. CCROs; JFM).
According to the NRGF, the recognition and respect for land and resource rights, especially customary collective rights, motivates local stewardship of lands and resources and in turn contributes to effective and equitable natural resource governance. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa should base its action on the extent to which the legal and policy framework of the country anchors security of tenure rights. The legal framework should recognise customary, collective and individual tenure rights, including for marginalised groups such as women. Tenure rights should be robust and enhance access, use, benefit and management of resources. The processes and capacities of duty bearers and rights-holders should enhance the recognition, protection and enforcement of tenure rights, including clarification of overlaps.
Strengths 1. The Land Act (1999) and Village Act (1999) provide an adequate legal framework for securing collective and individual rights over land through three categories (village, reserve and general land). The state remains the de-facto guarantor of rights of ownership over all the land, but the law also establishes clear processes for consultation, compensation and re-distribution of land in case of changes in land use or ownership. 2. For most rights-holders in rural areas, VLUP and CCROs are important tools for securing land and resource rights because they enhance individual and collective rights (in the case of CCRO) or collective rights (in the case of VLUP). Thus, village land use plans increase the security over all resources in a village from easy appropriation by the central government. Further, the establishment of village forest management plans guarantees rights over access and use of the forests to the village through the village committees. The village governments can only transfer up to 50ha of village land
24 to other uses such as investment.18 However, the village assemblies, district councils and commissioner of lands have to approve a government land transfer decision. 3. Populations in villages without VLUPs have less security over tenure and have less power in shaping decisions, as decision-making is considered under the jurisdiction of the commissioner of lands. Nonetheless, the law provides for processes such as EIA compensation (monetary or land) and relocation, and limits land holding for private companies. 4. For the case of reserve land, the sectoral policies guide access rights and benefit-sharing. In the case of Kalambo Nature Forest Reserve, the policy provides the possibility for JFM with adjacent communities, which may guarantee security of access and benefit-sharing once the JFM agreement is negotiated and agreed upon. 5. For water, the act secures the power of society to participate in decisions over access, use and benefit. In the case of water and forest resources, enhancing procedural and substantive participation of different rights-holders enhances equity and secures rights.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa Ppogramme 1. Based on the above, the achievement made by the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was supporting the establishment of seven village land use plans and 1,031 CCRO-secured rights. 2. The platforms for inclusive participation in management of these resources enhance and sustain tenure security. 3. SUSTAIN contributed to a framework that can enhance security of ownership, use and benefits of over 17 forest village forest reserves.
Gaps 1. Only a few villages have land use plans. Only 28 of the 55 villages in the landscape have land use plans in place. Hence, much of the population has less secure land holding and has limited participation in making decisions about its use, demonstrated by the focus group discussions with the technical team in the Mpanda district. The Mpanda planning officer noted that he had received a directive to identify 11,000ha of land for an investor and his target was land in villages without approved land use plans. Nonetheless, it is noted that districts are required to allocate a land bank for investment and this land comes from the general area of land owned by government (issued by Commissioner for Lands) or from village land. For village land, a request is sent to the village council to determine how much unoccupied land they may offer for investment, and the land to be given must be approved by the Village Assembly in writing. In practice, this presents many challenges with processes of making decisions that programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa should consider. 2. Additionally, as already indicated above, the process for developing the village land use plans prioritised the timing and generic scientific guidelines established by the national land use planning commission. They relied less on the history, power relations, experience and political economy of the communities. As a result, the process led to some tensions19 that risked derailing the security that the tools provide and further risked new forms of marginalisation. Overall, the villages with LUPs are not fully secure because platforms and processes for people’s participation are still weak. In this situation, there is risk that facilitators may use process to prioritise their perspectives and interests over communities. 3. Whereas the law provides efforts to secure women and youth in the CCRO by including provisions for up to 10 family members and children to appear on individual land certificates, the application of this law in a polygamous community was still a challenge. CCROs limit areas under collective ownership (which, if not limited, could help secure land for the most marginalised). These mistakes manifest
18 Reduced from 250ha provided for in the 1999 Land Act. 19 See tensions examples above, Box 1, 2 and 3.
25 when planning prioritises technical generic guidelines over specific contexts informed by culture and experience that can be used to negotiate more win-win situations. 4. Whereas CCROs are an important security measure for individual land ownership, they risk undermining collective rights of the society, especially for vulnerable groups. Discussing individual and collective rights in tandem and in relation to different societal groups is crucial. 5. Some rights-holders are not considered because their livelihood activities are not part of the land use planning process. For example, a key gap that remains is related to artisanal mining. The relationship between owners of mining lincences and labourers and costs of extraction versus benefits is a crucial area to consider as a key factor leading to degradation of land and water. The effort to understand the political economy that shapes the actors, users and forms of production will determine the extent of suitable use. The focus has been on shaping better production through awareness; however, this remains a challenge if underlying causes that push people to use mercury (such as benefit-sharing) in the industry are not engaged. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme team noted this problem and the need to address it.
Recommendations 1. Where possible, SUSTAIN can contribute to the scaling up the VLUP in the other 27 villages – as long as efforts are inclusive and rights-based. 2. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can support the strengthening of the process of inclusive and equal participation of the majority in VLUPs by drawing on local knowledge, interests and experiences to sustain tenure. This process requires VLUP committees to enhance interactions with the assembly by providing prior information through interactive radio programmes, allowing those who do not attend assemblies to provide input. Organising regular feedback is important as this avoids the symbolic-only use of assemblies and enhances their functionality as platforms for achieving representation and equity in decision-making. 3. A regular mapping of rights-holders in a village is crucial for new initiatives, such as SUSTAIN-Africam and this should be carried out along gender, income, ethnicity, immigrants versus native status, and in some cases, religion. The rights are transient along these key categories and shaped by particular contexts. 4. Addressing challenges, lessons and ideas to improve land use planning are critical. These should be discused and debated at the regional and national platforms to ensure that lessons are learnt and plans to influence regulations are explored. This is one of the ways to enhance the value and relevance of the platforms. 5. Part of the solution requires creating a framework for the local representatives to engage policy makers at the district and national level to follow up issues that are not addressed at the village level. For instance, flexibility of technical guidelines could be discussed, as these guidelines currently restrict the use of local knowledge, ideas and experience. 6. Grievance mechanisms provided for in the law and society should be clear because they enhance the enforcement of rights.
Principle 3: Recognition and Respect for Diverse Cultures and Knowledge Systems
“Natural resource governance is grounded in sound and diverse forms of knowledge and respect for diverse natural resource values and practices” (Springer et al forthcoming).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations Diversity in the area There was limited Consider local knowledge, ideas, values, interests and provides a basis for use of local input in all initiatives such as:
26 drawing innovative knowledge or monitoring and management of water and buffers ideas and views in values. This was a which crops and livestock and poultry varieties are resource management. key gap in the promoted SUSTAIN-Africa VLUPs processes programme. JFM decisions
Drawing on diverse knowledge, practices and innovations enhances inclusion, equity and respect of the diverse rights and values that motivate stewardship of nature. Programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa should promote strategies and actions that draw on multiple and diverse knowledge and value systems, which include both traditional and scientific systems.
Strengths 1. The analysis identified the diverse ethnic groups in the areas in which the project was implemented. For example, the Mnyagala village included Sukuma, Bende, Fipa, Ha and Nyiliamba. Different ethnic groups represent diverse values, knowledge and ideas about management and benefits from the landscape. 2. Similarly, the communities around Kalambo forest include a rich cultural heritage attached to access and use of the forest and the falls. Many spiritual and cultural rituals are crucial for neighbouring communities to remain motivated in protecting the forest. At the focus group discussion during the study, some members proposed developing tourism to boost engagement. This is an area that can be explored during the development of the management plan of the forest nature reserve.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa Programme The SUSTAIN-Africa programme implementation approach identified some local knowledge and ideas that were considered in the decisions regarding the management of the resources. They included allocation of areas for worship and traditional ceremonies. Some rituals were mapped and some cultural leaders were included in the management committees.
Gaps 1. One gap was the limited use of societal knowledge systems, values and experiences in shaping the interventions. Some cultural ideas and institutions were mapped, but these were not effectively considered in some key management decisions . As already indicated, the indigenous varieties of crops were not highly prioritised for production and marketing, and local knowledge was not adequately considered in monitoring and management of the river system. 2. As indicated above, technical guidelines and timelines issued by duty bearers and NGO facilitators dominated the ideas and process for setting up the new structures and the programme interventions, despite the mapping of some customs and religious rights. 3. Smart agriculture interventions and contract farming arrangements that were being promoted through farmers’ cooperatives were primarily based on improved varieties recommended by input suppliers and dealers. There was less consideration of indigenous systems.
Recommendations 1. SUSTAIN-Africa should promote the use of traditional institutions and knowledge to expand the spaces for exploring, learning and negotiating varied views and interests across diverse constituents to inform decisions. The process of drawing on a wide range of options distributes power and enhances equitable decisions. This leads to informed consensus or informed compromise. In turn, this enhances the value, motivation and interests of people to become active participants and stewards, and increases ownership and legitimacy of processes and outcomes.
27 a. For example, the cooperatives should be used to enhance the recognition of cultural products and practices that enhance the value of the landscape and differentiated interests, in addition to meeting the established private sector market requirements of improved values, inputs and markets. Innovations include such initiatives as bio-cultural labeling/ land stewardship paradigms that position farmers’ lands and products in more powerful positions in the market. This in turn focuses on the health of the land and its management as much as the value of products and the market. b. The other example is water management systems that include local knowledge of monitoring quality and quantity, or management of buffers that may enhance the responsible participation of broad society in shaping benefit-sharing. For example, WUAs planned to establish concrete beacons to demarcate river buffers; however, this would be an expensive undertaking and risk beacons being stolen and destroyed. Instead, WUAs could explore the alternative of using the funds to establish a sustainable incentive scheme, such as a stewardship model, that involves the entire community in planting, managing and monitoring live markers. This would included broad society in establishing the rules and procedures on management of the buffer. 2. It is also crucial to ensure that traditional leaders recommended to committees have clear processes for the equitable participation of their constituents in decision-making process. This avoids the promotion of unequal power structures that may be present in traditional systems.
Principle 4: Appropriate Devolution of Authority
“Decisions are taken at the lowest possible level appropriate to the social and ecological systems being governed, with particular attention to supporting the roles and authority of local communities in natural resource governance” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. Devolution is provided for in 1. Inclusion in decision- 1. Capacity is the biggest challenge. natural resource management making processes at Programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa policies and laws. the new structures is should catalyse the functionality of 2. Some key institutions are in weak, and local the devolved structures by using place, such as assemblies and views, ideas and them to include rights-holders in ward-, district- and regional- knowledge of most making decisions about level planning units. rights-holders are programme implementation 3. The SUSTAIN-Africa not fully considered. approaches and to use them to programme supported the 2. Funding for the the account for progress. establishment or strengthening new institutions to 2. Map rights holders in programme of sectoral structures for undertake their roles sites to determine the substance devolved management (such as is weak. and process of decision-making. WUAs, JFM and VNRC).
NRGF promotes the use of the lowest possible level of social and ecological systems for decision-making. Devolution enhances responsiveness and active participation of all rights-holders, which enhances the recognition of diverse rights in decision-making. Devolution must be provided for in the legal and policy framework, and institutions must be in place to be effective. Most importantly, local institutions, duty bearers and rights-holders must have the capacity (knowledge and access) to effectively facilitate decisions at the local level.
28 Strengths 1. As already indicated for Tanzania, existing policies have provisions for devolution of the management of most natural resources. The challenge is the lack of or weak structures and processes for enabling effective participation of rights holders. In the Sumbawanga cluster, most of the platforms were not in place, which posed a challenge for the majority of society to engage powerful actors in making decisions about resource use. 2. As highlighted above, the villages without VLUPs are vulnerable to decisions made by commissioners. Meanwhile, where platforms are established, society has a stronger basis for claiming their rights. A similar situation is found in water systems without the WUA and catchment management structures, where most stakeholders would struggle to engage powerful users along the rivers.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme Through the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, a number of the necessary structures for devolved management were established in the Sumbawanga landscape. As already indicated under Principle 1, they include the WUAs, the Catchment Management platforms; Village Forest Committees, the Joint Forest Management Committee around Kalambo forest and the cooperatives. These structures link with the village assemblies, which are the most important local structures through which the majority participate in decision making about the management of resources.
Gaps 1. As already indicated, the challenge of devolved structures such as the WUA was that decision-making at the platforms is not inclusive. Wile there is an established systematic process of drawing views of society to make decisions at these structures, this process was weakly followed, and there was limited effort to account back to society on decisions made. This challenge was largely due to limited funds. a. Most of the rights-holders did not directly and effectively participate in making decisions about by-laws, water use permits, licenses and fines, costs and generation of benefits, distribution of costs and benefits, or use of riverbanks. Most of the decisions were made by the WUAs, catchment committees and the Lake Rukwa Board on behalf of villages, but with limited input from the assemblies due to poor attendance and publicity. b. Similarly, at the VFMC, decisions on rules, generation of benefits and managing costs were made by representatives and village government, with limited substantive input from assemblies. c. Further, accountability of WUAs to the assemblies generally took the form of summarised reports, often in technical terms that the majority could not fully engage. 2. A second gap relates to the weak capacity of the new institutions to carry out their responsibilities of consultation and implementation around decisions reached. Most of the institutions, such as the forest committees and WUAs, indicated limited capacity to patrol and enforce the laws. 3. For all the institutions, the challenge emanated from considering themselves primarily as enforcers of state and village laws, rather than representatives of society with the primary concern of enabling input of societal ideas for shaping decisions on how to solve challenges such as the lack of funds at the platforms. Hence, most of the institutions and representatives had not established a process of effectively consulting on innovative ideas that are feasible and beneficial to individual and collective interests.
Recommendations 1. The most important aspect that promotes the functioning of the structures is to use them actively to plan and respond to various interests of wider society. Since funding is often the challenge, using programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa is a practical way to catalyse and promote the use of platforms for collective decision-making on approaches of project implementation and for providing updates and
29 feedback. This enhances platforms’ legitimacy and functionality over the project period. Their effectiveness can also motivate and empower rights-holders to demand the same from other programmes or government initiatives. 2. The discussions at the assemblies should draw on local knowledge and views of the different rights- holders on key issues such as royalties, fees, fines, returns from managing the resources with the public, and how to involve society in shaping decisions. Guaranteeing individual and collective benefits often incentivises society to offer their ideas and support rules enforcement. 3. Mapping the different rights holders to determine their capacity and shape procedures and substance of decision-making guarantees the reflection of diverse views and interests. 4. As already indicated, enhanced use of interactive tools such as radio and more frequent assemblies are crucial because they make governance structures more accessible. This would make rights holders’ views, knowledge and interests the centre of the substance and process of decision-making at the structures
Principle 5: Strategic Vision, Direction and Learning
“Natural resource governance is guided by an overall vision of desired environmental and social ends, and allows for adaptation in response to learning and changing conditions” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. SAGCOT strategy reflects 1. The regional platforms convened 1. The SUSTAIN-Africa environmental and social by the government are not programme should support safeguards that any known or accessible to most the revitalisation of the project should address. rights-holders and their landscape forum, while This provides a reference representatives. Yet these ensuring that rights-holders to guide programmes and platforms are a key space where have access to the forum and initiatives and to hold challenges like those faced can substantively participate duty bearers and during VLUP can be discussed through their representatives companies accountable. and further addressed. or interactive media. 2. There is a regional 2. SUSTAIN-Africa established a 2. The landscape forum should platform to discuss landscape forum where rights- be used to influence the landscape goals. holders engaged in the regional government’s vision 3. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can interact with and direction and programme supported other powerful stakeholders, but accountability about natural some villages and the forum is not regulalry resources management and catchments to develop convened (if it were, it could developments such as management plans that enhance vertical knowledge reflections on guide coordinated action. sharing, decision-making and implementation of SACGOT accountability on key issues). safeguard.
The strategic vision should include safeguards and inclusive processes. These should be reflected in policies and laws and should be incorporated in monitoring, reflection and learning processes to adapt to changing conditions and needs.
Strengths 1. The strategic framework that guided the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was the SAGCOT initiative, whose vision includes achieving inclusive economic growth while enhancing environmental
30 sustainability. The Kilombero report shows that Tanzania’s national policies and laws are meant to guide the SAGCOT programme. Tenure, safeguards, benefit-sharing and inclusive participation are provided for in the laws and policies (as indicated above). The SAGCOT platform provides a framework that can be used by stakeholders to track progress toward achieving this vision. 2. The Sumbawanga cluster does not have a SAGCOT office to enhance coordination of the initiative (as is the case of the Kilombero cluster), but Sumbawaga does have actors that reference the SAGCOT vision, such as SNV, AGRA and other companies. 3. The regional government convenes quarterly and at annual meetings to reflect on the performance of various sectors towards reaching national goals. These meetings help coordinate a shared vision and direction for inclusive and equitable development.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa Programme 1. As already indicated, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme established and strengthened some necessary structures to enable the inclusive participation of rights-holders to implement and benefit from the SAGCOT vision. The most important frameworks are the Rukwa and Katavi Regional Platforms, where different actors meet to reflect on progress made and discuss ideas. The regional platforms enable a holistic focus on the landscape, including discussions on how to manage the general land that wide society has less control over. However, as indicated, the multi-stakeholder forum is not functional because of limited funding to regulalry and consistently convene it. Furthermore, when it is convened, the forum discusses fragmented issues rather than considering them holistically. 2. SUSTAIN supported the development of some catchment and village plans which provide a basis for coordinated visions at the local level.
Gaps 1. The two regional platforms are not functioning effectively because of convening costs, yet they are the best platform for including rights-holders in shaping a holistic landscape vision that takes into account the region’s different ecosystems. Most importantly, regular convening of the regional platforms would enable wide society to shape views and ideas on how to manage the area outside village and reserve land, which would benefit the villages that do not have LUPs. 2. Most rights-holders were unware of the regional platforms and so are unable to strategically use the platforms to enhance recognition of their voice and ideas in higher-level decisions. 3. The process for most of the rights-holders’ participation is unclear, jeopardising majority participation at the landscape forum. 4. The platforms often focus on narrow issues, which limits the holistic nature needed to effectively address landscape challenges. This in turn causes fragmentation and undermines the collective power of society.
Recommendations 1. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can use existing platforms do facilitate programme discussions, decisions and accountability, which can catalyse local support for revitalising the landscape forum. 2. Endeveour to finance finance forums to explore discussions and innovative ideas on how to effectively and feasibly convene it, allowing consistent follow-up of discussions. The focus should be on enhancing the forum as an accountable, innovative and inclusive space that is known by and accessible to community representatives. The forum can further be linked to innovations like a trust fund and PES scheme, which require regular convening to make decisions about generating and sharing benefits. 3. Use the landscape forum to develop a landscape vision with rights-holders that reflects their knowledge, views and ideas and links with regional government goals.
31 4. Individual strategic plans could then be discussed and collectively considered at the landscape level to identify common governance issues across local communities. Most importantly, lessons learnt through this process can be used to inform projects and interventions in other landscapes, nations, regions and the global level.
Principle 6: Coordination and Coherence
“Actors involved or affecting natural resource governance coordinate around a coherent set of strategies and management practices” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations The 1. The majority of rights- 1. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme should influence landscape holders at the village level rights-holders’ systematic and active interaction has the are unware of frameworks with the different platforms that have been necessary beyond the village level, or established at the different levels through their institutional they have limited access to representatives. frameworks them. 2. The focus of discussions at the platforms should to enable 2. The majority of rights- be on substantive issues that have emerged from vertical and holders have limited programme implementation, such as conflicts horizontal capacity to access and related to VLUPs, the capacity of WUAs and coordination. influence regional-level benefit-sharing under JFM. platforms.
The SUSTAIN-Africa programme should enhance the vertical and horizontal coordination of actors with a role in managing the landscape. Most importantly, SUSTAIN must enhance the processes that empower rights- holders, especially those who are often marginalised, to participate in landscape management in order to enhance inclusion and equity of decision-making. Policies and laws should make provisions for coordination, and mechanisms and institutions must be in place to operationalise this coordination.
Strengths As indicated above, the landscape has the necessary institutional frameworks to enable vertical and horizontal coordination of landscape management. The key platforms include: 1. Village level: The village government and assembly is the lowest structure through which to achieve coordination and coherence. It is at this level that the majority of rights-holders can have a view of and role in influencing more coordinated action and coherence between different management actions – like those related to water, production, forests and wildlife – through the WUA, Village Forest Committee and Cooperatives. 2. Ward level: ward development committee and ward tribunal 3. District level: district technical and political structures 4. Regional level: The regional platform can bring together representatives of catchment committees and district representatives. The regional platforms is crucial as it links with national-level political and technical offices as well as NGOs. These platforms should link with the SAGCOT secretariat and national-level platforms.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme 1. As already indicated, SUSTAIN-Africa helped to establish necessary sectoral structures through which vertical and horizontal coordination can be enhanced across sectors and levels.
32 2. The WUAs, Village Forestry Committees and cooperatives enable the village assemblies to focus on sector-specific discussions. WUA and JFM enable coordination across villages. 3. Additionally, the programme enhanced vertical coordination through catchment committees and the Rukwa and Katavi multi-stakeholder platforms.
Gaps The majority of the population was not aware about these platforms and their goals at the regional level, or they lack capacity to influence the substance and process of discussions at the regional platforms.
Recommendations 1. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa should use the assemblies to support regular horizontal discussions around project approaches and implementation, aimed at landscape management. As already indicated, the discussions should be enhanced through complementary tools such as the media. 2. Programmes should advance beyond training and sensitisation to establish a transparent process for discussions – and for communicating the substance of discussions – of key issues at the village, ward, district and landscape levels.
Principle 7: Sustainable and Equitably Shared Resources
“Actors responsible for natural resource governance have the resources they need to carry out sustainable management and governance activities, including from the equitable sharing of benefits generated from natural resources” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations Resources can 1. Established institutions (WUAs and VFCs) 1. Use the SUSTAIN-Africa be used to have low capacity, and few innovative programme to enhance generate participatory processes have been explored. transparency, inclusiveness and sustainable 2. Differentiated interests are not clear or equitable discussions around financing for adequately discussed among different project implementation at the management rights-holders. new platforms. Each rights- and benefit. 3. There is weak transparency and participation holder should know the process of the majority of rights-holders in decision- and schedule of discussions making (such as regarding use of fines and and decisions on pertinent the 20 per cent of benefit-sharing derived issues. from JFM/WUA), which contributes to the 2. Support the creation of new two points above. and strengthening of existing CBFM structures.
Actors responsible for natural resources have the resources they need to carry out sustainable management and governance activities, including resources from sustainable livelihoods and equitable sharing of the benefits generated from natural resources.
This principle considers two aspects: the capacity that is needed to sustain institutions and actors to engage in resources management, and the flow and equitable sharing of benefits that includes an intergenerational dimension.
33 Strengths 1. The area has considerable resources (water, land, forests, minerals and wildlife) that could be sustainably managed at low costs by enhancing local accountable stewardship based on clear, equitable and sustainable benefit-sharing. 2. The institutions to establish the framework of sustainable management are in place. 3. National-level initiatives such as the tree fund, wildlife fund and REDD+ initiatives can be accessed to complement and enhance innovative development and sustainable benefit-sharing mechanisms. 4. The Reserve authorities, Lake Basin and TFS share 20 per cent of generated revenue with local communities.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme The SUSTAIN-Africa programme has established/strengthened the necessary structures for society to shape the resource management and to participate in making decisions about sharing resources’ benefits and costs. For example, one of the all-women focus groups indicated that, at the village assembly, the village government had presented a proposal (for people to vote on) around using the revenue collected from forest management permits and fines. One of the decisions was to use the revenue to build two classrooms in the primary and secondary school. The revenue was used to co-finance 60 million shillings from the Tanzania Education Authority.
Gaps 1. The biggest challenge for the community was that most of the new institutions had low capacity to responsibly undertake their assignment. For example, WUAs and Village Forest Committees had limited resources for carrying out patrols, and had not yet successfully explored ways to establish stewardship models or collective patrols with rights-holders, which would be more feasible and more cost-effective. 2. Whereas collective rights and benefits were clear, individual benefits were not. Individual benefits are key for motivating and enabling participatory management approaches and benefit-sharing, and the lack of attention paid to individual benefits and rights reveals inequality that may exist. 3. There was inadequate transparency and ineffective participation of the majority of the population in making decisions about the proposals to use the revenue generated from the resources (such as the fines and the 20 per cent revenue-sharing from water or forest management or from permit sales for timber by the village government). Thus, whereas the people voted on the options for using the revenue, many did not participate in proposing ideas for generating and sharing the benefits that they voted on. 4. Attempts for transparent discussions were limited to information sharing, and did not include decisions on innovative ways to generate and distribute revenue. For example, fines from illegal use of forests were used to implement communal projects such as schools, but this proposal was made by the village council with limited input and debate from the assembly (albeit the provision to vote on options chosen by leaders). Similarly, it was not clear how much of the revenue collected by the WUA was retained in the landscape, how much was transferred, what was returned and how decisions for use were made. In some villages, financial reports were presented to the assembly but in forms that were unintelligible to the majority of the population (including summaries and written documents).
Recommendations SUSTAIN-Africa can help to strengthen this area by working with the new inclusive institutions to enhance transparency and innovation in processes and discussions on how to sustainably generate revenue from resources and which mechanisms for sharing benefits will motivate resource stewardship. This will be most effective when a participatory mapping of individual and collective rights and interests guides the process of decision-making and accountability around benefit-sharing.
34
Principle 8: Accountability
“Actors responsible for or affecting natural resource governance are accountable for their actions and the environmental and social impacts they produce” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. Policies and laws have 1. Duty bearers and 1. Strengthen new institutions by using guidelines on actors, representatives at the the programme interventions to responsibilities and new structures weakly catalyse participatory planning, mandates for resource use existing laws to monitoring and sanctions of both management, and provide accountability society and leaders. address social and to society. 2. Use radio and other transparent environmental 2. Rights-holders are not methods that enhance participation safeguards. adequately incentivised of the majority of rights-holders in 2. Accountability structures to sanction leaders. holding representatives accountable. are generally in place.
Accountability involves accepting responsibility and providing feedback about actions taken. Policies and laws that articulate processes and structures for duty bearers to transparently provide feedback to rights-holders are crucial. Policies should particularly be clear on how to account for social and environmental safeguards. They are most effective when rights-holders have the capacity or access to mechanisms to sanction leaders positively or negatively, which can help rein in corruption (the use of public resources for private gain).
Strengths 1. The policies and laws in Tanzania have relatively clear guidelines on actors, responsibilities and mandates for resources management. Similarly, structures for accountability have been reasonably established, including the need to address social and environmental safeguards. 2. The platforms for enabling accountability of duty bearers are in place.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme The SUSTAIN-Africa programme influenced the reporting about decisions and revenue by VNRC and WUA at the village assemblies. The practices of duty bearers accounting to assemblies is an important policy requirement that was carried out on a quarterly basis. The extent to which society influences the decisions and sanctioning of good and bad performance determines the effectiveness of accountability of duty bearers.
Gaps 1. The biggest gap in the governance context was that, while duty bearers or representatives updated the community and followed participation processes provided in law, in some cases these efforts were only symbolic. For instance, presentations were made to assemblies with poor attendance, and reports were provided in formats that were not accessible to the majority of the community. Attendance is often low at these meetings because the focus is on collective benefits and accountability, which affects the community but not individuals. 2. Additionally, the rights holders’ sanctions are often ineffective and do not impact duty bearers’ actions.
35 Recommendations The SUSTAIN-Africa programme interventions can provide the basis for society to establish positive and negative sanctions for leaders. A structure for participatory monitoring of the decisions of SUSTAIN’s implementation, and sanctions for non-performance, should be enhanced.
Principle 9: Fair and Effective Rule of Law
“Natural resource-related laws and their application are fair, effective and protect fundamental rights” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. Justice systems and 1. Lower governments have limited capacity to A programme like grievance enforce the rule of law and the grievance SUSTAIN-Africa should mechanisms are in mechanisms, which prevents law enforcement use established place. from following rights-based approaches. platforms to strengthen 2. Society is generally 2. Communities are hindered by the high costs law enforcement and aware of the required to engage higher-level structures. grievance mechanisms. mechanisms in place.
The rule of law “refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards” (United Nations Security Council, 2004 – as cited by Botero & Ponce, 2010).
The rule of law is strong when: There is a clear system of natural resource norms and sanctions defined in laws and policies; Laws are widely publicised; The system is consistent with human rights; The law takes account of the situation of indigenous peoples, local communities, women and vulnerable groups; and Laws are enforced equally and humanely.
Strengths Justice systems and grievance mechanisms are relatively well established in Tanzania, from the village to the national level. Wide society is also relatively well informed about justice systems and their rights. For example, in one of the villages where conflicts over land use in relation to the buffer zone had arisen after the land use planning process, the conflicted party sent a letter to the district when the assembly and planning committee were unable to resolve it. Eventually, when it became clear that the district officials seemed engulfed in conflicts of interest, a delegation was sent to the Commissioner of Lands to seek redress on the matter.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa Programme Through the programme, many community members were trained about the provisions of laws for village land, forest resources and water management. However, as indicated above, many of these provisions were in relation to prescribed technical guidelines which included less recognition of local context and conditions.
36 Gaps 1. The main gap is the inadequate capacity of the governance institutions at the lowest level to enforce the rule of law. 2. Some tensions arose about risks of eviction from areas re-designated under VLUPs or during the establishment of the Kalambo Nature Reserve. 3. A few cases of corruption and impunity were mentioned, and these risk undermining programme achievements, especially with regards to access and use of forest resources following the establishment of by-laws. Focus group discussions revealed that some patrol units and members of the forest management committee misused their responsibility to solicit bribes from society to access resources. Additionally, some of the provisions of the by-laws may risk marginalising some groups.
Recommendations 1. There is a critical need to enhance the capacity and incentives of society to hold duty bearers and representatives from WUA, VFC, the catchment cooperatives and the district-level accountable. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa can enhance accountability through its interventions. Potential risks should be assessed and discussed through the platfroms. 2. To achieve accountability, decisions on programme interventions should be made transparently through the established structures, especially with regards to management, collective and individual benefits, accountability of achievements and positive or negative sanctions. 3. Enforcing sanctions through the formal and cultural institutions is crucial. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa can be used to catalyse respect of the rule of law in a landscape by establishing clear processes at existing institutions, which would demonstrate the structures’ effectiveness, relevance and legitimacy to the community.
Principle 10: Access to Justice and Conflict Resolution
“People are able to seek and obtain remedies for grievances and resolve conflicts regarding land and natural resources” (Springer et al 2019).
Strengths Gaps Recommendations 1. Grievance 1. The majority of the population did not 1. SUSTAIN should support all mechanisms participate in establishing the roles and rights-holders to actively are in place. responsibilities of the representatives of participate in decision-making at 2. Society is the WUA. Hence, they were not aware new structures to discuss roles relatively of how to sanction representatives and and responsibilities and how to well seek redress. address grievance. informed 2. Specific grievance mechanisms for some 2. SUSTAIN should support an about the of the new structures are not clear, like interactive process through structures. in the Kalambo forest and WUAs. discussions at different levels and through radio programmes.
The NRGF adopts the UNDP (2005) definition that “access to justice concerns the ability of people to seek and obtain remedies for grievances from formal or informal judicial institutions, in accordance with human rights standards.” Justice requires the establishment of policies and structures for redress. This is complemented by peoples’ awareness about their rights and processes or mechanisms through which they can seek redress and resolution. Most important is to ensure that mechanisms are accessible to the most marginalised and that they are practical for all categories of society.
37 Strengths 1. As above, grievance mechanisms and justice systems are well established in Tanzania, from the village to the national level. 2. Society is also relatively well informed about their rights and the processes for grievance resolution.
Achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme The programme established structures that can facilitate engagement with higher level duty bearers. SUSTAIN-Africa established a whistle blower system which any individual can use to inform the district land officer, district natural resources officer, district forest officer and programme staff of any illegal activities happening in village areas, allowing for quick action regarding that illegal activity. Conflict resolution committees were also established.
Gaps 1. Grievance mechanisms beyond the local level are not easily accessible due to costs and bureaucracy. For example, in one village, decisions had been made to adjust land use plans due to conflicts that had arisen, but engaging beyond the district to the national level was cumbersome. 2. Some of the challenges that the local people faced were considered to be perpetuated at the district level, and so the community was forced to engage higher levels that are more costly to reach. For example, decisions to address the allocation of buffer areas during VLUP was considered to be enforced from the district level, and so people decided to mobilise to meet the higher costs of seeking redress from the commissioner at a higher level. 3. The traditional and cultural systems did not function as avenues of conflict resolution.
Recommendations Use the SUSTAIN-Africa programme to catalyse the use of the new structures to explore more feasible means of seeking redress. Using new structures for redress should be also be used for particular programme implementation. A participatory reflection on the weaknesses of the current conflict resolution mechanisms is also needed.
Women exchange ideas after a FGD at Vikonge Village (IUCN).
38
5. Conclusion
This report presents an analysis of the Sumbawanga natural resource governance context through the lens of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme. It builds on the Kilombero study that shows that the policy and legal provisions for natural resource governance are adequate, but implementation is a challenge. This analysis demonstrates that the first phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme laid an important foundation for enhancing the implementation of the favourable natural resource governance provisions in the policy and laws in Sumbawanga.
The primary focus of the analysis was to highlight: Ways to enhance smallholders’ power to participate in shaping natural resources management and development pathways; and Ways to enhance equitable benefit-sharing among rights-holders.
The 10 NRGF principles and criteria ensure that the core values of human rights and sustainable conservation are at the heart of the analysis. Through the principles, these core values are systematically, coherently and comprehensively considered. The NRGF can be used to consistently monitor the same issues as implementation proceeds.
The analysis shows that the SUSTAIN-Africa programme made a significant contribution to strengthening the effectiveness of natural resource governance in the Sumbawanga cluster. The analysis has demonstrated that capacity is the main challenge for implementing the favourable natural resources policy and legal provisions. A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa can provide capacity, practice and evidence of how duty bearers (including NGOs) can enhance existing frameworks and how rights-holders can claim responsibility for frameworks and influence their implementation. The analysis shows that all programme interventions have the ability to significantly shape governance of a place. They can enhance or undermine exexisting conditions, or create no impact. Making governance an explicit goal of a programme, and of each programme intervention, enhances both governance outcomes and other programme goals.
SUSTAIN-Africa Phase I contributed to NRGF principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
Principle 1: SUSTAIN established and enhanced inclusive participation by supporting the establishment of legal institutions for enabling participation. Remaining gaps centre on procedural and substantive participation of the majority of rights-holders.
Principle 2: The programme supported the enhancement of, recognition for and respect for tenure rights through the provisions of the VLUP and CCROs. However, the tenure security only applies to some people, and there are areas of inequity with regards to gender and collective rights that need careful monitoring.
Principle 4: SUSTAIN implemented the devolution of natural resource management to the lowest appropriate levels, enhancing the access of the majority to decision-making processes.
Principle 5: SUSTAIN enhanced the framework for establishing a strategic vision, direction and learning based on the regional platforms that SUSTAIN contributed to. However, more work is needed to improve the platforms’ functionality by increasing their accessibility to the majority of the rights-holders.
39 Principle 6: The SUSTAIN-Africa programme helped enable vertical and horizontal coordination, which increases the accountability of duty bearers.
SUSTAIN-Africa Phase II can enhance NRGF principles 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10
Principle 3: Recognition of diverse cultures and knowledge systems. While SUSTAIN-Africa contributed to mapping and recognising different cultures and belief systems, these systems need to be further analysed and engaged in order to avoid new marginalisation and instead enhance access and recognition.
Principle 7: Enhance sustainable resources and benefit sharing. Particulalry, supporting the majority participation in defining the benefits that the programme supports to reach the majority individually and collectively. The individual differentiation ensures that exclusions are tracked and minimised.
Principe 8: Enhance accountability. The second phase of the program can enhance the regular collective reflection on the contribution of the project to address exclusions in decisions making, benefit shairing and mangement of the resources.
Principle 9: Implement fair and effective rule of law. Through the program, a regular reflection on the collective enforcement of the law. SUSTAIN II can contribute to strengthening the link between individual and collective benefits to the individual and collective roles and responsibilities in management and enforcement of established laws through the project.
Principle 10: Enhance the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms. The SUSTAIN II program can contribute to enhancing the use of the established redress systems to resolve the grievance which arise as result of the project. In doing so, the project contributes to strengthening their functionality.
Overall
The study demonstrates how the second phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme can practically enhance the foundation from Phase I. This foundation centres on inclusive, equitable, rights-based and effective participation in the broad governance of the landscape. The programme can ensure that all rights-holders, including smallholder farmers, acquire the necessary capacity and power to contribute to decision-making frameworks. SUSTAIN can also support rights-holders to counteract powerful private sector actors and duty bearers around the use and management of resources in ways that secure livelihoods and enhance opportunities for development.
40
References
NRGF (2017). Natural Resources Governance in Kilombero Cluster and the SAGCOT Initiative: An Assessment of Key Issues and Recommendations for Action. CEESP and IUCN.
Springer, J., Campese, J. and Nakangu, B. (2019). The Natural Resource Governance Framework. Improving governance for equitable and effective conservation. Draft Report. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN.
Hippos suffocating from reduced flow of Katuma river due to degradation (IUCN).
41
Annexes
Annex 1: Stakeholder mapping of actors for consideration by the SUSTAIN- Africa programme in the Sumbawanga cluster
SUSTAIN-Africa interventions The stakeholders below are relevant for the establishment of Water User Associations (WUA), Catchment Management Committees and Village Land Use Planning (VLUP).
Stakeholder categories
Mapping stakeholder categories aims to reflect the differences between stakeholders and the power relations that need to be considered and mediated. These categories also require further reflection around the role of gender, income, ethnicity, religion and ownership and access to land and resources.
Broad society Small land owners Large land owners Indigenous communities Migrants Farmers Pastoralists (small and large scale) Agro-pastoralists Fishers (small and large scale) License holders of artisanal mines Workers in artisanal mines Workers in SME agricultural companies, Traders of water (for irrigation, domestic use and large scale production) Domestic water users Small producer groups Small cooperative groups Large cooperative groups Men and women who do not belong to any producer groups or cooperatives Land owners adjacent to riverbanks Timber traders Charcoal producers NTFP traders NTFP users The Katavi National Park Micro and small private sector actors (such as processors and traders of crops like maize and sunflowers) Companies working on lodging and construction Academic research institutions
42
Duty bearers Village government (Village Natural Resources Committee, district and regional councils, seven wards, 19 Villages and three district councils) Lake Rukwa Basin Water Board Urban water authorities that distributes water to urban areas (10 water users and 200 permit holders in Lake Rukwa Basin) WUA representatives (committee of 45 members, with each member representing a population of 30– 39 villages and each villaging having a population of 50,000-79,000 people) Commissioner of Lands Commission of Tourism TFS TWS Technical committees (such as catchment committees) Technical staff at district, region and national levels Regional commissioners (Rukwa and Katavi) National Environment Agencies District, regional and national cooperative societies SAGCOT
Other stakeholders CBOs and NGOs supporting conservation and water resources management NGOs supporting private sector investment Small and medium private sector companies Financial institutions Development partners (such as GIZ, WB and IUCN)
43
Annex 2: Table of NRGF principles and criteria
NRGF Principles Critera 1. Inclusive decision- Relevant legal/policy frameworks include robust provisions on the making inclusion of rights-holders and stakeholders in decision-making. Platforms/processes are in place to enable full and effective Decision-making regarding participation in decision-making. natural resource policies and Processes for inclusive decision-making engage diverse groups, are practices is based on the full socially and culturally appropriate and take account of power and effective participation of dynamics within and between groups. all relevant actors, with Rights-holders and stakeholders have access to information particular attention to the concerning the environment and natural resources. voice and inclusion of rights- Rights-holders and stakeholders have the capacities and support holders and groups at risk of they need to participate in decision-making, including through marginalisation. appropriate representation. Natural resource decisions take account of the views expressed through consultation/participation processes. Free, prior and informed consent is required and secured for decisions concerning indigenous peoples/customary rights-holders, their lands or their resources.
2. Recognition and respect Relevant laws/policies/rules mandate recognition and respect for all for tenure rights tenure rights, with particular attention to women’s rights and customary (including collective) rights of indigenous peoples and Rights to lands, resources and local communities. waters are recognised and Tenure rights are robust, enabling rights-holders to sustainably respected, with particular manage, use and benefit from and protect lands/ resources from attention to women’s tenure threats. rights and the customary, Processes and capacities are in place to recognise and respect land collective rights of indigenous and resource rights, including for purposes of formal recognition. peoples and local Processes and capacities are in place to protect and enforce tenure communities. rights. Overlapping tenure rights/claims are clarified in law and resolved in practice.
3. Recognition and respect Governance strategies and actions are informed by sound and for diverse cultures and diverse forms of knowledge, including indigenous and traditional knowledge systems knowledge. Diverse cultural values and practices sustaining natural resources are Natural resource governance is respected and protected. grounded in sound and diverse Governance institutions foster a culture of learning and adaptive forms of knowledge and management. respect for diverse natural Indigenous/traditional knowledge is integrated in natural resource resource values and practices. governance.
4. Devolution Legal/policy frameworks devolve natural resource management to capable institutions closest to natural resources. Decisions are taken at the Legal/policy frameworks for devolved natural resource governance, lowest possible level including community-based natural resource management, are appropriate to the social and widely implemented. ecological systems being Local institutions have the capacities and support they need for governed, with particular effective and equitable natural resource governance. attention to supporting the
44 roles and authority of local Appropriate consideration is given to the roles and authority of local communities in natural communities in natural resource governance. resource governance.
5. Strategic vision, direction Relevant legal/policy/management frameworks establish strategic and learning vision and direction for natural resource governance. Strategic vision and direction are set through inclusive processes Natural resource governance is that take account of diverse values and forms of knowledge of guided by an overall vision of rights-holders and stakeholders. desired environmental and Strategic vision and direction incorporate key principles of social ends, and allows for environmental sustainability, such as the precautionary principle adaptation in response to against risks of environmental and social harm. learning and changing Strategic vision and direction address present threats and anticipate conditions. future challenges. Governance of natural resources is consistent with defined strategies. Governance institutions incorporate ongoing monitoring, reflection and learning that enables responsiveness to changing conditions and needs.
6. Coordination and Legal/policy frameworks across sectors responsible for and/or coherence affecting natural resource governance are aligned. Coordination mechanisms are in place to enable “horizontal” Actors involved in or affecting collaboration and coherence among multiple actors and/or sectors natural resource governance operating in the same geographical space. coordinate around a coherent Mechanisms are in place to enable “vertical” coordination across set of strategies and multiple levels of actors with roles in the governance of the same management practices. ecosystem or resource. Institutions collaborate and overlap functions in ways that enable resilience.
7. Sustainable and People responsible for natural resource governance have access to equitably shared resources revenues and/or livelihood activities that enable them to carry out management activities. Actors responsible for natural Resources/revenues provide sufficient financial sustainability for the resource governance have the people and actions required to manage and conserve natural resources they need to carry resources. out sustainable management Benefit-sharing from the use of natural resources is equitable. and governance activities, Resources and benefit-sharing provide incentives for the including from the equitable conservation and/or sustainable use of natural resources. sharing of benefits generated Losses stemming from restrictions to enable natural resource from natural resources. sustainability are minimised and compensated where unavoidable. Natural resources and the environment are sustained so that each successive generation has equitable access to their benefits.
8. Accountability Institutions responsible for natural resource governance have clearly-defined roles and responsibilities. Actors responsible for or Actors responsible for or affecting natural resource governance affecting natural resource operate transparently, sharing open and accessible information governance are accountable about their actions. for their actions and the Capacities and mechanisms are in place to hold natural resource environmental and social governance authorities responsible for their actions. impacts they produce. Social and environmental safeguards that explicitly take account of the situation of vulnerable groups and environments are adopted and implemented.
45 Potential impacts on vulnerable environments and people are understood in advance and avoided or minimised to the extent possible. Accountability mechanisms effectively rein in corruption (use of public power for private gain).
9. Fair and effective rule of A clear system of natural resource norms and sanctions is defined in law law/policy and widely publicised. Natural resource-related laws/policies/rules are consistent with Natural resource-related laws human rights and take account of the situation of indigenous and their application are fair, peoples, local communities, women and vulnerable groups. effective and protect Natural resource-related laws/policies/rules incorporate principles of fundamental rights. environmental sustainability. Enforcement bodies have the capacity to uphold established norms and sanctions. Natural resource-related laws/policies/rules are carried out equitably and humanely.
10. Access to justice and Formal and/or non-formal mechanisms are in place to resolve conflict resolution conflicts and grievances regarding land and natural resources. People are aware of their natural resource governance-related rights People are able to seek and and the avenues available to them for resolving conflicts or seeking obtain remedies for grievances redress. and resolve conflicts regarding Grievance/dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible to rights- land and natural resources. holders and stakeholders, including vulnerable and marginalised groups. Mechanisms operate impartially and effectively to resolve disputes.
46 Annex 3: Analysis of SUSTAIN-Africa programme in Sumbawanga
Principle 1. Inclusive decision-making Strengths The Kilombero study shows that existing policy and legal frameworks include the provisions necessary for enabling inclusive participation. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme contributed to implementing these policy provisions by establishing institutions for local communities’ participation in decision-making in the Sumbawanga landscape. The institutions complemented the village assemblies, the most important structure for enabling inclusive participation in decision-making in Tanzania. The institutions established were: o Catchment Management Structures and Water User Associations (WUAs), with elected representatives from District Assemblies across three river catchments (each cutting across over 90 villages), to participate in shaping water regulations and catchment management at Lake Rukwa Basin. o Village Forest Management Committees (VFC), also drawn from village assemblies, to shape use, access and benefits from forest reserves of a village. o 17 Joint Forest Management Committees (JFM) for community participation in the management of and benefit from forest reserves. o 16 farmer groups and cooperatives at village, ward and district levels, which enabled local community participation in shaping market chains of key agricultural products. o Two MSD regional platform at the landscape level. critical for convening societal representatives, the private sector, district and national level duty bearers at the same table to plan and exchange ideas, debate critical issues and enhance accountability of their individual actions to wider society. Gaps The interests, guidelines and views of NGO partners and technical officers from the district and national levels dominated the processes for establishing and using the structures above. They followed a blue print and timelines provided by existing guidelines, with limited flexibility to include local ideas, knowledge and experience. For example, some of the rules issued by the WUA to create riverbank buffers using concrete pillars faced resistance because people felt they were losing valuable pieces of land. Proposals on use of riverbanks in ways that are protective yet valuable to owners need collective exploration. Regular updates by WUAs at assemblies were largely for information sharing on laws, regulations, guidelines, fines and fees. They focused less on joint decision-making on management and use with the varied societal groups. (Despite these gaps, WUAs and VFCs were widely acknowledged as very successful in managing water and the river systems.) An important achievement is the WUA monitoring water quality and quantity. However, this process utilised technical staff from the government, who use scientific methods. The community can provide ideas and local knowledge on how to participate in monitoring the water quality, flows and regulations, which would enhance ownership and participation and reduce costs.
Principle 2. Recognition and respect for tenure rights Strengths Tanzania’s policies and laws include robust provisions for the recognition of collective and individual rights over land and resources in the three main categories of land (village, PAs and heneral land). The State remains the de-facto owner of all the land.
47 The village committee controls village land and coordinates the distribution of rights to residents. This role is enhanced for areas with VLUPs, which protects all resources in a village from easy appropriation by the central government. Establishment of village forests management plans guarantees rights over access and use of the forests to the village through the village committees. The power over use in villages without VLUPs lies with the Commissioner of Lands, who can take over control of any village land and allocate it to other uses. Gaps The process to develop land use plans is not flexible, primarily following blue prints that prioritise duty bearers’ views on criteria and guidelines for developing plans for the location of forests, households, farms or investment areas. Further, the timing for developing the plans was shaped by the availability of technocrats and not by the history, power relations and context in the society. Consequently, some aspects of the plan seemed imposed on the community, and theis led to conflicts in all the villages consulted. At the same time, deviating from the established process risked leading to denial of approval of the plan. Consequently, villages were compelled to meet technical officers’ requirements. The other major challenge to increasing flexibility was caused by limited budgets and project periods in which the plans were developed. Recogniition is needed around the possibility of obscuring some specific tenure rights during the process of developing village land use plans. For example, efforts were made to secure women and youth in the CCRO by including provisions that all family members and children must appear on the certificate; however, for polygamous households, the provision stipulated the inclusion of only one wife. Other issues like this may arise when rights are mapped along major categories of the society, which can proritise land ownership and marginalise other groups. A mapping of rights-holders in a village is crucial and should consider income level, ethnicity, immigrants in the area vs indigenous peoples, and, in some villages, religion was also a critical factor. The other critical issue with CCRO is the risk of taking away the collective rights of society, especially for vulnerable groups like widows. Some groups had not obtained their CCRO because they were very expensive, and this increased the risk of losing their land rights to the wealthy. Resolving these issues requires adequate time to decide on drawing from diverse cultures, knowledge and experiences, some of which did not fit within the allocated guidelines and time.
Principle 3. Recognition and respect for diverse cultures and knowledge systems Strengths The policy provides for inclusive participation, which implies a recognition of societal knowledge systems, values and views. However, these need to be more dominant in all interventions of the established platforms (WUA, cooperatives, MSD, Catchment Management and JFM). The analysis reveals that SUSTAIN-Africa contributed to mapping the various customs, and included the recognition of traditional leaders in the process. Gaps As indicated above, duty bearers’ technical ideas, processes for establishing institutions, and deliberations dominated the process, at the expense of traditional knowledge, experience and history. The recognition of diverse views (under “strengths” above) seemed more symbolic than substantive. There was less room for local voices to shape or adjust guidelines to fit their interests, values or context because there was a fear of [the central government] not approving the plans and compromising collective aims. The adherence to technical guidelines risked insecurity for some of the community members. For example, in one village, the decision to create a grazing area in land occupied by farmers
48 risked the farmers’ security. In another village, the areas allocated for buffer land to the PA threatened the security of settlers.20 Another key area that needs careful consideration is the promotion of smart agriculture interventions and contract farming arrangements though the farmer cooperatives. The programme seemed to prioritise particular market-based varieties of inputs and products that were also prioritised by private sector ideas and interests, at the expense of customary products. The cooperatives should be used as a framework for enabling society to take more control of shaping the market chains by drawing on their culture, interests and identity, rather than simply fitting and meeting market requirements. While the cooperatives are negotiating better prices, it was not clear that conservation values were a dominant factor in the interventions. The platforms can be used innovatively to explore ways to enhance societal power through such initiatives as bio-cultural labelling and/or land stewardship paradigms that position farmers’ lands and products in more powerful positions to shape the market. This in turn prioritises the health of land and its management as much as the value of products and the market.
Principle 4. Devolution Strengths The decentralisation policy provides for devolved decision-making and provides a basis for establishing the institutions mentioned above. Enhancing the implementation of the devolution policy of Tanzania is one of the major achievements of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme as indicated above. Gaps The challenge that remains is to ensure that the structures themselves centre society’s interests, values and ideas as much as duty bearers’ views and guidelines. The structures have to be made more inclusive, accountable and responsive to wider society. There are weaknessneses in the process for consulting society on the decisions made at the platforms. Whereas efforts to include society in establishing by-laws and the election of representatives, other decisions seem to focus on fulfilling provisions in national rules. These decisions do not incorporate innovative discussions and indigenous ideas on management approaches, licenses, costs and benefits that could motivate more active participation. Capacity of institutions to carry out their responsibilities is needed. Most of the institutions, such as the Forest Committees and WUAs, indicated they have limited capacity to patrol and enforce the laws. Tis challenge emanated from institutions viewing themselves as enforcers of state laws, rather than mediators of society to shape ideas on feasible collective management approaches that are self- sustaining. Exploration is needed of innovative ideas on how to catalyse and incentivise positive self- enforcement of the rules by society. A facilitated discussion among societal actors is needed to enhance achievement, awareness and accountability of concrete collective and individual benefits. Such a discussion would be a good basis to explore innovative ideas to establish positive models of inclusive management that are both beneficial and cost-effective. This discussion should be informed by a transparent review of how royalties, fees, fines and returns from managing resources are shared with the public, and how to involve society in shaping decisions on how values are used. Guaranteeing individual and collective benefits often creates positive relationships with society in supporting the enforcement of the rules and ideas.
20 For these two examples, the policy provides space for adjusting the plans, and the village committees has indicated an interest in pursuing the adjustment, but the district staff were reluctant because it would require a repeat of the expensive consultation process.
49 Participatory mapping of rights-holders enhances the inclusion of all interests in decision-making. Principle 5. Strategic vision, direction and learning Strengths The main strategic framework is the SAGCOT initiative reflects the desire to achieve a sustainable and shared vision for resource governance. Gaps The SUSTAIN-Africa programme has supported the development of many plans at the village and catchment levels for each institution that was established following a landscape approach. However, because the consideration of societal values, interests and views was weak, the plans reflect the same weakness. For instance, the WUAs promoted an intervention to establish concrete beacons to demarcate river buffers; however, this would be an expensive undertaking, and there are reports of stolen and destroyed beacons. More feasible and sustainable alternatives should be explored, such as using the funds to establish a sustainable incentive scheme (like a stewardship model) that involves the entire community in planting, managing and monitoring live markers. Similarly, the programme should support society to explore participatory methods of monitoring water quality and quantity that enhances their engagement. Societal engagement is most sustainable when linked to clear individual and collective benefits. Most importantly, participatory accountability on the different plans and achievements at the village, district and landscape levels would naturally establish common lessons and ideas that can influence other landscape, nations, regions and global action.
Principle 6. Coordination and coherence Strengths As in Kilombero the SUSTAIN-Africa project established a platform for MSD in Sumbawanga that brought together key stakeholders to discuss critical issues, share lessons, and to collaborate and ensure that their actions are coherent. It provides an important framework for the society to ensure their values, knowledge and interests drawn upon to influence decisions at higher policy level where actors that are more powerful have a stronger influence. It is also the framework at which inclusive discussion and engage of the governance challenges such as those faced during village land use planning or regarding capacity of the structures to implement responsibilities. Gaps However, it was not clear that the society knew about these frameworks nor influenced their substance and process of their discussions. The MSD can be improve by establishing clear trace if the discussed process and issues at village, ward, and district and landscape level. The new established local structures should be basis for shaping process and substance of discussion at the MSD. This implies that structures should be the basis for drawing the representation at the MSD. This would allow a systematic and coherent process of influencing societal input in the discussion as well as accountability by representatives to the society. It implies establishing transparency of the process and substance of discussions at the MSDs at ward, district and landscape level.
Principle 7. Sustainable and equitably shared resources Strengths Most of the NRM policies include provisions for establishing resource management funds (such as funds for water, trees and wildlife). Most of the funds of the centrally controlled PAs include provisions for revenue benefit-sharing with local governments.
50 Gaps The biggest challenges for most of the new institutions was establishing and securing equitable benefits, in particular determining a balance between individual and collective benefits. The new institutions facilitated discussions (with weak transparency) around the process and structure of making decisions about revenue generation and cost- and benefit-sharing. For cases where there were attempts at transparency, discussions were mainly information sharing with wider society about fees and fines, and did not centre on innovative ways to generate and share revenue. Village governments decided on revenue use and costs with less engagement from the public on different options. Additionally, reports about were presented in unintelligible ways to the majority of the population (either summarised or in written form for a largely illiterate population). SUSTAIN-Africa can help to strengthen this principle by working with the new inclusive institutions to establish innovative process for the community to shape benefits and accountability thereof. This will be effective when all institutions participate in a mapping of rights and interests, and when a framework for inclusive decision-making and accountability is established. These aspects should be very clear on how to enhance collective and individual rights and benefits.
Principle 8. Accountability Strengths The policies and laws in Tanzania have relatively clear guidelines on responsibilities and mandates. The country has structures for accountability, including social safeguards. The key structure is quarterly reports at the assembly, district and regional levels. Gaps The process of accountability seems symbolic, and existing positive or negative sanctions are ineffective. The underlying problem relates to weaknesses in the substance and form of information, as well as the weak capacity to motivate people to participate in holding leaders accountable. One strategy to address this issue would be developing a new process to influence decisions on individual and collective benefits. Enhanced accountability can be initiated through the established institutions. These institutions can ensure that they impact accountability for critical issues at higher levels, including at the landscape level.
Principle 9. Fair and effective rule of law Strengths There is significant improvement in enforcing water policies through the WUAs. Gaps Weaknesses largely lie with limited capacity of various governance institutions to enforce the law. Efforts are needed to establish effective ways of self-enforcement of the law by society, with ideas drawing from local cultures and experiences. Clear links are needed between law enforcement and collective and individual benefits. Established structures can make benefits more coherent and systematic.
Principle 10. Access to justice and conflict resolution Strengths As above, Tanzania has established clear grievance mechanisms and justice systems from the village to national levels. Society is well informed about the systems and their rights. For example, in one of
51 the villages with land use conflicts, the conflicted party sent a delegation to the Commissioner of Wildlife to make a decision, who directed the district technical officer to address the problem. Gaps The challenge centres on accessing the grievance mechanisms that are beyond the local level. For example, in one village, decisions had been made to adjust the land use plans due to conflicts, but those who disagreed with the result found that it was too cumbersome to engage with grievance mechanisms beyond the district level.
52 Annex 4: Analysis of the intervention to establish WUAs
Principle 1. Inclusive decision-making
The WUAs were backed by a national policy: the Devolution of Water Resources Management. The rationale behind the law was to include wide society in making decisions on resource management. The WUAs expanded the platform through which society participates in water resources management, access and use decisions. WUAs complement village assemblies, where the representatives of the WUAs inform society about the decisions made by the WUAs and where WUA members consult society on issues. The platforms for societal participation were: WUA, Village Assemblies and the Catchment Management Committee at the basin level, which provided a basis for inclusive decision-making. o Each village selected a water management committee and a WUA representative. o Each WUA appointed a representative to a catchment management committee. The practice and process of consulting society to participate in decision-making at each of these platforms remained weak. Decisions were made at a higher level, and technical officers used the platforms on a quarterly basis to inform society of the decisions made (including decisions about laws, patrols, fines and implementing decisions such as demarcations, enforcing permits and access rights). The population participated less in making the important decisions around distribution of management, benefits and costs. While the majority of the population approved the work of the WUAs, concerns raised at various focus group discussions in the villages were that people never provided feedback on legal provisions and how they could be implemented. For example, more natural solutions/ stewardship arrangements could be used, like the use of fruit trees instead of costly concrete beacons to mark boundaries. Similarly some respondents indicated disagreement about the decisions made by WUA to control the use of the buffers. While they agreed to leave the buffers, they thought landownsers should be allowed to use the area, while WUAs proposed using buffers for their own (WUAs’) projects. Some users, such as the artisan miners, were largely seen as degraders and not rights-holders. Decisions about abstraction, monitoring and benefit-sharing were not shared with the society
Principle 2. Recognition and respect for tenure rights The provisions reflect that a recognition of all rights is provided for in the law. The guidelines require that a mapping of different categories of stakeholders be made, especially for promoting the inclusion of women in decision-making to ensure their rights are considered. Most tenure rights were recognised, especially around use of and access to water. Weaknesses were only reflected in the decision about the buffers and access and use of the buffers.
Principle 3. Recognition and respect for diverse cultures and knowledge systems As indicated under principle 1, the major challenge centred on using the WUAs as platforms to include society in decision-making. Instead, WUAs were largely platforms to inform and enforce technical decisions from above. For example, society was not consulted to explore how they can draw on their own cultures and knowledge to enforce the buffer or to monitor the quality and quantity of water. The burden fell on the technical officers from the basin level and WUAs. Society was not allowed to provide input or ideas about these decisions.
Principle 4. Devolution
The project enabled the establishment of the WUAs to implement policy provisions.
53 Appropriate consideration is given to the roles and authority of local communities in natural resource governance. Challenges centred on the weak capacity of the WUAs to implement provisions. They collected fees from fines, but most of the fines were remitted to the basin authority, while 20 per cent is meant to be shared with society. Participation in monitoring or innovative proposals for communal self-enforcement can be developed.
Principle 5. Strategic vision, direction and learning
In the case of Subawanga, the WUAs are anchored by the policies of NWRM and SAGCOT and by the different catchment and management plans. The SAGCOT visions do provide provisions for safeguarding society and the environment, and the WUA enables responsive action as well.
Principle 6. Coordination and coherence
As indicated under principle 1, the WUA are linked to Village Assemblies and Catchment Management structures through the Basin and Water Resources Management structures, which enable better coordination. Additionally, the programme supported the establishment of MSDs at the district and regional levels in the Sumbawanga cluster. These platforms provide the framework for achieving horizontal and vertical coordination of water resources management. At the catchment structure, more large-scale water users participate and more decisions are made with the WUA (such as fees, monitoring, access, rights and use). While the WUAs have representatives and processes for consultations, decisions were made at the catchment structure before the WUAs adequately consulted with society or provided feedback.
Principle 7. Sustainable and equitably shared resources
The policy makes provisions for benefit-sharing between WUA and Catchment Management. However, these provisions have not been implemented. Additionally, benefit-sharing between WUA and the rest of society does not seem to have been a focus of discussions.
Principle 8. Accountability
The WUAs provide a platform for the leaders at the catchment level to account to society about decisions, and the assemblies provide a link for the WUAs to account to society. However, these have not been well utilised, including to assess water quality and use by different water users.
Principles 9 & 10. Fair and effective rule of law & Access to justice and conflict resolution
A clear system of natural resource norms and sanctions is defined in law/policy and is widely publicised. The WUA established and enforces the provisions of laws and constitutions.
Annex 5: NRGF study field trip report – Sumbawanga
This annex highlights key activities and meetings conducted during the NRGF study in SAGCOT’s Sumbawanga Cluster.
54
3rd November 2019 The NRGF team – Doyi Mazenzele, Barbara Nakangy and Seline Meiher – flew to Mbeya. In Mbeya, the team joined Kasukura and drove to Sumbawanga town. The team held a brief meeting to familiarise the Tanzania team with the NGRF tool.
4th November 2019 Focus group discussions at Mpanda with selected village communities and key SUSTAIN-Africa partners.
Dirifu Village, Mpanda Municipality
The NRGF team visited the village to meet with leaders and representatives of the Mpanda WUA who converged in Dirifu. WUA members spilt into two gendered groups – men and women – to allow for effective discussions.
The meeting focused on the following issues: o History of and process for the formation of the WUA o Type and number of WUA members o Organisational structure of the WUA o Decision-making process within the association o Transparency, including communication from leaders to members and vice versa o Type, frequency and participants of WUA Meetings o Roles and responsibilities of the WUA o Process for developing and approving WUA bylaws o Sources of revenues and distribution of benefits o Relationships between the village, district government and Basin Authority o Key challenges facing the WUA and addressing the challenges o Key recommendations for further action by different actors
Nondo Investors, Mpanda Municipality
A meeting was held with the Director of Nondo Investors, Mr. Kamtoni. The company was involved in the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, particularly focusing on contract farming for sunflowers, among other crops. The meeting focused on the following: o History and key operations of the company o Contract farming: process, provisions and parties involved o Criteria to participate in contract farming o Type and number of AMCOS involved and the type of services offered to AMCOS o Transparency and openness with regard to prices and payments o Breaching of contracts: reasons and how they were addressed o Communication with AMCOS members via meetings and phone calls o Role of the company in enhancing sustainability o Tracking improvements of livelihoods and standards of living of the people o Addressing risks facing agriculture o Strategies for enhancing productivity o Key challenges facing the company in relation to sustainability and contract farming o Key recommendations for improved contract farming 5th November 2019
Tanganyika District Council
55 The NRGF team met with selected officers of the district in charge of water, forestry, beekeeping and agriculture, including irrigation and cooperatives. The Tanganyika District Council mandated supporting villages in its jurisdiction with planning and implementation of development projects and with supporting sustainable management of natural resources.
Land use planning
The meeting discussed the following: The process followed for the development of village land use plans Composition of District Participatory Land Use Management (PLUM) Team Formation, eligibility, composition and capacity building of Village Land Use Management (VLUM) Committee Key land uses considered for zoning during land use planning process Approvals and revisions of proposed land use map Mechanisms for compensating land acquired for communal use Status of compliance to VLUP, including challenges undermining the implementation of land use plans
Forestry
Key issues on forestry discussed during the meeting include: Eligibility, selection and functions of the Village Natural Resource Committee (VNRC) Zoning of forest reserves Activities allowed or prohibited in village forest reserves depending on zoned units Process for development and approval of bylaws regarding forest reserves Sources of revenues for the VNRC Benefit-sharing mechanisms within and outside the VNRC Transparency in relation to revenues and performance Challenges facing the VNRCs Ongoing initiatives in the forest sector
Investments
The meeting discussed the following: . Type and size of investments already undertaken and planned in the district/ region . Process for allocation of investment permits . Land acquisition and compensation in relation to investments . Potential challenges related to investments Existence, functioning and convening of stakeholders’ platforms
Nkugwi village, Tanganyika District
The meeting in Nkungwi was attended by representatives of the Village Government as well as Village Natural Resource Committee and the then Village Land Use Management Committee. Other participants included pastoralists and irrigators. Community members split into two gendered groups – men and women – to allow for effective discussions. Key issues discussed include: o General information: population/ household size, main economic and ethnic groups o Process of land use planning: who, where and how they were involved o Process for the zoning of the forest reserve and other communal land uses o Approval of the village land use plan: how the decisions were made o Composition of the VNRC and VLUM
56 o Key functions of the VNRC o Avenues and process for handling dissatisfactions and conflicts (redress) o Zoning of the village forests o Status of the village plan o Compensation of land acquired for communal interests o Sharing of benefits from the village forest reserve o Process for the development and approval of land use bylaws o Challenges experienced in the management of water resources
Mnyagala village, Tanganyika District
The meeting in Mnyagala was attended by representatives of the Village Government as well as Vthe illage Natural Resource Committee and the then Village Land Use Management Committee. Other participants included pastoralists and irrigators. Community members split into two gendered groups – men and women – to allow for effective discussions. Key issues discussed: o Process for the development and approval of the village plan o Key activities undertaken by VLUM o Zoning of different land uses o Benefits and disadvantages of land use planning o Cost and benefits of CCROs o Zoning of the village forest reserve o Access to the forest reserve o Distribution / sharing benefits (monetary and non-monetary) accruing from the forest reserve o Challenges undermining the implementation of land use plans o Challenges limiting sustainable management of water and forest resources o Process for issuance of water use permits o Collection of water user fees o Compensation for land acquired for public use by the village government o Manner and frequency of the revision of the village land use plan o Villagers’ participation in village committee, council and assembly meetings o Measures for addressing key challenges resulting from the development of a land use plan
6th November 2019
Namanyere AMCOS, Nkasi District
This meeting was attended by leaders (Secretariat, Board Members) and members of the Namanyere AMCOS. It was also attended by the District Cooperatives Officer and Extension Officer. The points of discussion included: o History and vision of the AMCOS o The geographical coverage (number of villages and wards) of the AMCOS o Governance structure: secretariat, board and members of the AMCOS o Criteria / eligibility for joining Upendo (precursor to the AMCOS) and Namanyere AMCOS o Number of AMCOS members o Shares: number of allocated shares with respective unit prices o Type and number ofmeetings of the AMCOS o Standard agenda of AMCOS board and general meetings o Process for development and approval of bylaws / constitution o Arrangements for accessing credits o Process / mechanism for handling of conflicts and disagreements
57 o Management of MCOS funds: controlling fraud and embezzlements o Key buyers of the produce: sunflower and maize o Experience with contract farming o Provisions for improving inclusion of vulnerable farmers
Rukwa Regional Government and NGOs Representatives, Sumbawanga
The meeting involved government and NGO representatives in Rukwa region dealing with natural resources governance, as well as agriculture and cooperatives via PPP. Key issues discussed include: o The type, number and role of platforms operating at district and regional levels (TCCIA, Regional Cooperative Union, MVIWATA, NEEC, Regional Consultative Committee / Regional Task Force, Rukwa NGO platform, sectoral platforms, and Multi-Stakeholder Platform) o Focus areas of the platforms o Benefits derived / resulting from the presence of each of these platforms o Membership to the platforms: eligibility and fees o Platforms’ initiatives to advance inclusivity o Meetings related to the platforms: invitations, agenda, attendees, decision-making and feedback to the rest of the community o Reporting and sharing of information within and outside the platforms o Key achievements of the platforms o Challenges facing the platforms
7th November 2019
Kalambo Forest Nature Reserve (KFNR)
Key issues discussed during the meeting with TFS, acting KFNR, Joseph Chezue: o Geographical size and coverage of the Kalambo Forest Nature Reserve o Process for the establishment of the KFNR o Type of meetings conducted with the adjacent communities and government at various levels o Process for the development of the KFNR’s GMP and its status o Process for the development of VLUPs for adjacent villages o Socio-economic potentials and zoning of the KFNR o Before and after KFNR: what has improved or worsened in terms of sustainable forest management o Areas of collaboration with villagers on the conservation and protection of the KFNR o Compensation for displaced uses o Benefit-sharing mechanism with the adjacent communities
Kalambo village, Kalambo District
Key issues explored at the meeting: o Benefits that were accessible prior to the establishment of the KFNR o Key challenges about the presence of the forest reserve and their solutions o Process for the designation of the KFNR o Potential opportunities to be capitalised by villages resulting from the creation of the KFNR o Key roles and responsibilities of the VNRC and the challenges they encounter o Type of meetings organised during the process of designating the forest reserve o Disadvantages of the forest reserve o Compensation of land for displaced communities o Presence and mechanisms for handling conflicts between TFS and adjacent communities
58 o Benefits before and after the creation of the KFNR o Types of alternative livelihood opportunities introduced o Channels for addressing complaints o Measures for enhancing collaboration between TFS and adjacent communities o Access rights to the KFNR
8h November 2019
LRBWB - Mbeya, Sumbawanga
The meeting was held in Sumbawanga and was attended by the Basin Director and Community Development Officers. The meeting discussed the following: o Community participation in the management of water resources o Number of WUAs and Catchment Forums (CFs) formed and type of support provided o Process for the establishment of WUAs and CFs o Participation of different social groups in the formation and running of the WUAs and CFs o Membership to WUA and Catchment Committees o Key mandates of WUAs o Arrangements/ requirements for WUAs to collect water user fees o Overview of activities carried out by WUAs in the protection of water resources o Key factors considered in the allocation of water to users o Challenges facing WUAs in discharging their roles o Key water-related conflicts prevalent in the area o Structure / composition of the Catchment Forums o Process before and after the meetings of WUAs and CFs: channels for providing information and feedbacks to the wider community o The status of illegal water extraction / use: the amount of illegal extraction has been declining o Decisions on the use and distribution of WUA revenue o Sustainable activities promoted in buffer zones o Transparency regarding the distribution of revenues o Use of champions in advancing sustainable water management o Improving wells for monitoring ground water fluctuation (quality and quantity)
Actions for Development Programs (ADP) – Mbozi
The meeting was held between the NRGF team and ADP representative in Sumbawanga town. Key issues discussed include: o Number of AMCOS the organisation is working with o Challenges facing AMCOS / cooperatives in relation to leadership, inclusivity, and management o Efforts undertaken to enhance inclusion, especially targeting women and youth o Enhancing good governance, including accountability and transparency of AMCOS o Challenges facing cooperatives in Tanzania o Improving women’s role in leadership positions and their participation in cooperatives’ decision- making bodies and processes o Transforming farmers’ groups to AMCOS o How the revolving fund works in relation to roles of AMCOS, input dealers and banks o Initiatives targeting farmers and support provided to them o Key buyers of agricultural produce, including sunflowers
59 o How inclusion of women is ensured in AMCOS: enrollment of members, election into the board and committees, participation in meetings and elections and enacting provisions in the bylaws/ constitution o Arrangements for enrolling disadvantaged groups as individuals or as groups (e.g. VICOBA) o Training programmes aimed at improving inclusion of women o Practice of contract farming, including key challenges and solutions o Modality of payments and recovery of loans o Lessons and recommendations for better management of cooperatives / AMCOS o Payment via AMCOS: OK + MOBILE + AMCOS = cash flow + recover deduction o Key actors in the sunflower value chain
Team meeting
A team meeting was conducted to: o Share key observations from the field, based on the NRGF principles o Agree on the NRGF report structure o Agree on responsibilities for compiling the report o Introduction (Barbara and Seline lead) o Assessment site and context: need to reference Kilombero study (Kasukura) o Governance context (Kasukura lead) o Analysis of strengths and gaps in inclusive and rights based approach in SUSTAIN-Africa in Sumbawanga Cluster (Barbara and Seline) o Conclusions and recommendations o Compilation of the field trip report and review of the report (Doyi)
60
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN)
EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA REGIONAL OFFICE Wasaa Conservation Centre, Mukoma Road, off Magadi Road P. O Box 68200 - 00200 City Square Nairobi, Kenya +254 20 2493561 | +254 20 2493565 +254 73 4768770 | +254 72 4256804 [email protected] www.iucn.org www.iucn.org
61