Can NGOs make a difference?
The role of NGOs in agricultural water development policy processes in Tanzania
Susanne Skyllerstedt
Supervisors:
Jennie Barron Timos Karpouzoglou
M.Sc. Thesis in Social-Ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development 60 credits (article format)
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Stockholm University
2 TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 3
ABBREVIATIONS ... 4
INTRODUCTION ... 5
BACKGROUND ... 7
NGOS IN TANZANIA ... 7
AGRICULTURE IN TANZANIA ... 8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10
NGO PARTICIPATION ... 10
DIMENSIONS OF POWER:CHALLENGES FOR NGO INFLUENCE ... 11
NGO AND MULTI-ACTOR NETWORKS:OVERCOMING THE CHALLENGES ... 13
METHODS ... 14
FIELD WORK AND INTERVIEWS ... 14
TEXT ANALYSIS ... 16
RESULTS ... 17
EXPECTED PARTICIPATION... 18
PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION ... 19
DIMENSIONS OF POWER ... 22
NGO AND MULTI-ACTOR NETWORKS ... 23
DISCUSSION ... 27
PARTICIPATION ... 27
POWER ... 28
NETWORKS ... 29
STUDY LIMITATIONS ... 30
CONCLUSION ... 31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 32
LITERATURE CITED ... 33
APPENDIX 1 ... 38
APPENDIX 2 ... 39
APPENDIX 3 ... 40
3 ABSTRACT
Agricultural water management (AWM) has been identified as a mean for small-scale farmers to increase productivity and to overcome challenges posed by occurring climate changes, holding them in a poverty trap. Stakeholder participation has been included in national plans since the development of the Agenda 21, from the Rio Conference in 1992. In this context, the participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is recognised to play a key role in ensuring sustainability and reduction of poverty, for example through approaches of integrated water resources management (IWRM) and ‘good governance’. This study focuses on the participation of NGOs in decision making around agricultural water development in Tanzania. The research takes a systematic approach to address both the ‘perceived’ and
‘expected’ engagement of NGOs in different policy processes.
The findings of this study demonstrate that although NGOs are formally included in decision making, their participation has become narrowed down to service provision and implementation of policies, as opposed to NGOs having a more meaningful influence over the setting of policy priorities.
The study further demonstrates that unequal power relations between different NGOs as well as between collectives of NGOs and other stakeholders in government and business may pose added challenges for their participation on policy. However, NGO coordination within networks may provide a fundamental (yet not formally articulated) support towards NGO efforts to overcome unequal power relations. It is therefore important to better understand how well-coordinated NGO networks with good connections to decision-makers can help individual NGOs to increase their influence in policy processes.
Key words: agricultural water management; networks; non-governmental organisations;
participation; Tanzania.
4 ABBREVIATIONS
ACT Agricultural Conservation Tillage Network ACTN African Conservation Tillage Network AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ALP Agricultural and Livestock Policy
ANGONET Arusha NGO Network
ANSAF Agricultural Non-State Actors Forum
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy AWM Agricultural Water Management
CBO Community-based organisation
COSTECH Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology CSO Civil-society organisation
FBO Faith-based organisation GMO Genetically modified organism
MAFSC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives
MAFSC DM Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives -Department of Mechanization
MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NGO Non-governmental organisation
NIP National Irrigation Policy
NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA) NWP National Water Policy
NWSDS National Water Sector Development Strategy PELUM Participatory Ecological Land Use Management RDS Rural Development Strategy
RUDI Rural-Urban Development Initiative
SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania SAIPRO Same Agricultural Improvement Programme
SAMECAO Same and Mwanga Environmental Conservation Advisory Organisation TANGO Tanzania Association of NGOs
TOAM Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement WHT Water Harvesting Technologies
5 INTRODUCTION
Since the Rio Conference in 1992, there has been a general perception that development progress must be negotiated between multiple stakeholders to ensure sustainability and poverty alleviation. Already in the Agenda 21, a participatory approach and partnerships between NGOs, government and other actors was promoted, and NGOs were recognised to have a given place in decision making (UN 1992). The participation is a way for NGOs to get engaged in governance and policy processes at different levels and to advocate for those who are not included in these processes (Lutabingwa et al. 1997). However, the potential for NGOs to influence decision-making processes is highly affected by power relations (Hydén and Mmuya 2008), and individual NGOs might not have the capability to overcome these (Lutabingwa et al. 1997).
In Tanzania, the agricultural sector is of particular policy relevance as it provides the livelihoods for around 80% of the population who depends heavily on small-scale1 agriculture. It also accounts for more than half of the GDP making it a priority sector for growth and poverty reduction (URT 2001a). Within research there is high awareness of the importance of AWM2, including water harvesting technologies (WTH)3, to strengthen the agricultural systems for poverty alleviation (Rockström et al. 2002; Biazin et al. 2012; UNEP 2009).
There are many different paths to achieve improvements in AWM. Up- and out-scaling of these technologies can for example be achieved through government cooperation, and lobbying and advocacy (Edwards and Hulme 1992). NGOs are important actors as they can contribute to out-scaling in terms of service provision and extension services, knowledge dissemination through research (Hatibu 2005; Kerr 2002).
The prevalence of NGOs has increased vastly since the 1980s. This is true also for Tanzania where their role has changed to become increasingly recognised as key actors in development.
There has also been a general shift where civil-society organisations (CSOs), NGOs included, have moved towards capacity building at local level and advocacy work (Guijt 2008). With this increase in NGOs working with national level advocacy and their acknowledgement in multi-actor governance systems it is interesting to further investigate their potential role in up-
1 Small-scale agriculture is for this study referred to farmining on land between 0.2-2.0 ha (URT 2001a).
2 AWM is here defined as soil and water conservation, irrigation development and rainwater harvesting in soil structures (Barron et al. 2008)
3 The definition of WHT for this paper is in-situ water harvesting structures in agriculture, such as in soil water management, conservation agriculture, and agroforestry.
6 scaling of AWM through influencing national policies around agriculture and connected sectors. The aim of this study is to address the knowledge gap on how stakeholders, in particularly NGOs work to engage in policy processes and how they are able to influence decision making at national level in Tanzania, with the purpose to clarify actor roles and responsibilities around AWM. Thus, the following two research questions are posed for this study:
RQ1. Do NGOs play a role in influencing decision making processes?
RQ2. How do NGOs coordinate their work to strengthen their potential to influence?
7 BACKGROUND
NGOs in Tanzania
This study specifically focuses on the influence of NGOs on national policies connected to AWM in Tanzania. NGOs are for the study defined as CSOs that are registered under the NGO act of Tanzania (URT 2002b). Thus, organisations that are not registered as NGOs, for example the group of community-based organisations (CBOs) are not included in the scope of the study. NGOs represent a diverse group of organisations working with different agendas and pre-requisites, making it difficult to handle them as a cohesive group. In this study the NGOs have been divided into two main sub-groups: 1) local NGOs working at local to national level; and 2) national branches of international NGOs working at local to national level. These NGOs are often members of NGO or multi-actor networks at national to regional level. In Tanzania, most CSOs are informal groups and small CBOs, faith-based organisations (FBOs), and other associations, but NGOs is a group that is increasing (Haapanen 2007).
Figure 1 shows the link between these different types of organisations.
Figure 1 A map over the different groups of CSOs and the different groups of NGOs. NGOs, CBOs and FBOs are all different types of CSOs. Included in the figure is also the NGO or multi-actor networks as well as the private sector that are also represented in the multi-actor networks.
There are difficulties in finding precise numbers of active NGOs in Tanzania (Michael 2004), but it is clear that since the 1980s there has been a huge increase in the number of NGOs both in Tanzania and in sub-Saharan Africa in general (Lutabingwa et al. 1997; Shivji 2004;
Michael 2004). Most NGOs have focused their work on service delivery, however, there has been a shift where they have increasingly started to work with community capacity building and advocacy work (Guijt 2008; Haapanen 2007).
8 An on-going trend within the NGO community in Tanzania is the organisation in networks (Haapanen 2007). The networks are formed for coordination of the work, for networking and information exchange between actors (URT 2001). There are several different types of networks of NGOs. Some are sectoral, meaning that they focus their work within specific sectors, such as the Tanzania Water and Sanitation Network (TaWaSaNet) and Agricultural Non State Actors Forum (ANSAF). These can also be multi-actor networks that include both NGOs and representatives from the private sector (Figure 1). Some networks are cross- sectoral but have spatial boundaries and include members from specific areas such as the Arusha NGO Network (ANGONET). Finally, the Tanzania Association of NGOs (TANGO) has a national span and includes only NGOs. For the purpose of this study, focus is on sectoral networks working on issues within the agricultural sector in Tanzania. These networks are registered formal institutions, and well established organisations functioning as meeting platforms for their members. The potential informal networks connecting individuals and organisations may have implications on the result of decision making, but are not within the scope of this study.
Agriculture in Tanzania
Tanzania is a country with fertile land and water resources, and in general favourable conditions for agricultural production. Some parts are relatively dry as more than half of the country only receives an average of less than 800 mm of rainfall per year (URT 2005). An estimated 44 million ha of land in Tanzania is suitable for cultivation, and around 10 million ha is actually being cultivated, leaving large areas of land suitable for agriculture uncultivated.
These land areas are now targeted in national plans and policies, such as the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), as they have been identified as high priority areas for agricultural development and intensification (URT 2001a).
The agriculture sector in Tanzania currently focuses on modernisation and a new green revolution for Africa, with increased use of inputs, value chain development, and mechanisation. This is reflected in for example in the SAGCOT and Kilimo Kwanza4 which are supported by the national government, the private sector, and also partly by the international donor community (SAGCOT 2013). The SAGCOT initiative is further explained in Box 1. This development is a response to a changing economy in the country that since the mid-eighties has redefined the role of the government and the private sector. It has resulted in
4 Kilimo Kwanza, meaning ‘Agriculture first’ is a strategy focusing on investments for a green revolution in Tanzania with much focus on the modernisation and commercialisation of the agricultural sector (TNBC 2009).
9 in increased focus on the private sector as an important actor for development alongside the government (Hydén and Mmuya 2008), a trajectory that can be seen both in the East African region through for example the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) (NEPAD 2013), as well as around the world.
The different governance levels in Tanzania reaches from village, ward, division, district, region, and up to national level. In this study the levels from village to region are referred to as local levels. The main focus is on local and national levels, however, at times regional and international levels are mentioned. In these cases, the regional level refers to the region of sub-Saharan Africa.
10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework of this study brings together issues on participation, power and networks connected to NGO influence on agricultural policy processes.
NGO participation
Stakeholder participation is a key value for ‘good governance’ and integrated water resources management (IWRM), and has been increasingly included in policy making since the formulation of the Agenda 21 (GWP 2009; UN 1992). There is a general understanding that this approach has positive impacts on the quality and sustainability of decision making (Bijlsma et al. 2011) as well as for social justice, democracy, and transparency in decision- making processes (Guijt 2008; Korfmacher 2001; Pollard and Court 2008). Korfmacher (2001) points out how the participatory approach enhances the development of social capital for the involved actors, with a focus on the participation of citizens. Social capital can for example be strong networks, as mentioned by Walker and Salt (2006), something that affects the resilience of social-ecological systems and that are identified in this study as a potential strategies for NGO influence. Stakeholder participation has also been identified to add understanding about the social-ecological system, as for this example of the agricultural system in Tanzania, through the knowledge exchange between stakeholders (Reed 2008).
For this study, participation is defined as the participation of NGOs in decision making processes around agricultural water development. The outcome, when discussing the potential for NGOs to influence, depends on the quality of the participation process and not only on the fact that stakeholders are provided with the option to participate (Reed 2008). Even though NGOs are increasingly active in national level decision making and multi-stakeholder participation approach is adopted in many policies, actual level of involvement has shown to stay low (Dagnino 2008; Guijt 2008). This is the case also in Tanzania (Hydén and Mmuya 2008; Haapanen 2007), even though it is statutory to include representatives from all key stakeholders for example in the cases of the National Water Policy (NWP) through an integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach (URT 2002a), as well as through
‘good governance’ as in the National Framework for Good Governance (URT 2013).
A gap can be identified between the NGO participation which is formally mandated and the actual participation, or the participation as perceived by the stakeholders. These different levels of participation are used in the framework of this study: the expected participation, meaning participation that is stated as ‘desired’ in policy and strategy documents; the perceived participation, meaning the participation as it is perceived by the stakeholders that
11 are formally included; and the actual participation, meaning the participation that is actually taking place in decision making. The focus in this study is on the expected and perceived participation. The different levels of participation can occur within different processes in policy development. The policy cycle has been identified as including the different processes of: problem definition/agenda setting; constructing policy alternatives/policy formulation;
choice of solution/selection of preferred policy option; policy design; policy implementation and monitoring; and evaluation (Young and Quinn 2002 in Pollard and Court 2008). These steps are not necessarily followed in a straight manner. Thus, for this study the policy cycle function as a base for the theoretical framework and is adapted to include the steps of policy formulation, policy implementation and monitoring, and policy evaluation and revision.
Figure 3 shows the different policy processes in connection to the different levels of participation of NGOs.
Figure 3 The participation of NGOs in different policy processes in Tanzania, developed from the policy cycle (Young and Quinn 2002 in Pollard and Court 2008) and the Power cube (Gaventa 2006).
Participation can exist in connection to the three different policy processes, and can be at three levels ranging from expected participation, to perceived and actual participation.
Dimensions of power: Challenges for NGO influence
A deeper discussion on the inherently complex concept of power is beyond the scope of this study. However, it needs to be brought into light as a major challenge for NGOs affecting their potential to influence policies (Haapanen 2007; Hydén and Mmuya 2008). Cote and Nightingale (2011) discusses that for social analysis there is an importance to look at the role of power and culture as normative factors that many times can be disregarded when addressing ecological principles, but of importance when discussing what is desired resilience and for whom in a social-ecological system. It is also stated by Walker and Salt (2006), that what is a desired state is subjective and being resilient does not automatically imply desirable.
12 What is a desired state in the social-ecological system of Tanzanian agriculture differs between different stakeholders and the product would be a reflection of the desires of the actors who have the power to influence different policy processes in the sector.
Power has in different ways been addressed in research regarding NGOs and their role in development. Michael (2004: 18) defines NGO power as “the ability of local NGOs to set their own priorities, define their own agendas and exert their influence on the international development community, even in the face of opposition from government, donors, international NGOs and other development actors”. This definition is used for this study to focus on the power relations at different levels affect policy processes. Hydén and Mmuya (2008) are addressing the implications of power relations between donors, state and society on policy outcomes in Tanzania, and Guijt (2008) discuss participation and power relations at different levels using Gaventa’s (2006) ‘power cube’-framework, which includes power at different levels, within different spaces, and at different levels of governance.
There are many different ways in which power affects the outcome of policy in Tanzania, concluded by Hydén and Mmuya (2008) is that power is centralised for agenda setting and policy formulation, that power is not well-coordinated and thus ineffective when it comes to policy implementation, that non-state actors do not have much effect on government policy, and that power has the consequence of civil society trying to stay loyal to those in power of fear of repercussions. The fact that NGOs who do not follow the agenda of the government run a risk of the government potentially taking actions against their work through for example suspension (Bratton 1989; Hydén and Mmuya 2008; Pollard and Court 2008). This has vast implications on the potential for NGOs to push for issues that do not correspond to the agenda set by the government. It has also shown that the stakeholders that are included are those who work in alignment with the government’s agenda (DFID 2004).
In Tanzania, donors play a major role in agenda setting and they often cooperate with the government. There is a perception that these actors decide on the national agenda without consulting others (Hydén and Mmuya 2008), thus not giving the space for NGOs to participate in the agenda setting. At the same time it is difficult for NGOs to become independent of the state, with government and donors having the control over CSOs (Pollard and Court 2008). It is clear that power relations affect the potential for NGOs to influence through stakeholder participation and another dimension of this is what Reed (2008) discuss as consultation fatigue, being the result when stakeholders, even though given the opportunity for formally participate, are not adhered.
13 The role of power relations is evident between different civil society actors, and the amount of influence that they have. The power of civil society is restricted to individual organisations that are geographically based so that they are able to participate in dialogues with the government (Hydén and Mmuya 2008), which also brings up the issue of location as a potential challenge to influence at national level.
NGO and multi-actor networks: Overcoming the challenges
To overcome existing power barriers, individual NGOs might not have the strengths for successful influence (Lutabingwa et al. 1997). Previous studies emphasise the importance of coordinating the work and mobilizing the efforts for national advocacy (Hydén and Mmuya 2008; Guijt 2008; Huitema and Meijerink 2010; Lutabingwa et al. 1997).
Other features that have been identified as important for strengthening the NGOs in decision making are: firstly, increased knowledge through sharing experiences, and communication of evidence in discussions with decision makers (Edwards 1999; Pollard & Court 2008; Huitema
& Meijerink 2010); and secondly, the ‘right’ connections to decision makers (Bratton 1990;
Edwards 1999; Hydén and Mmuya 2008; Lutabingwa et al. 1997). This is connected to informal networks, and Bratton (1990) highlights that the relations with the government are key for NGOs to have an influence, and that there is a need for NGO to cultivate these contacts. These features of coordination, knowledge and connections have been identified as important for successful influence and with the increasing number of NGOs in Tanzania joining networks and involve in national level advocacy work, it is interesting to discuss the potential of these networks to overcome posed challenges. This is covered by the second research question in this study.
14 METHODS
Three principal methodologies were used in this study: data collection and analysis based on field work in Tanzania; interviews; and text analysis of sector relevant policy documents.
Several sources of data were used to ensure accurate assessment of the role of NGOs and to catch different biases (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). An overview of the research questions and the methods used to answer them is given in Appendix 1, as an extension to this section.
Field work and interviews
Multi-sited research was conducted during ten weeks of field work in Tanzania, between September and December 2012. 20 semi-structured, one-to-one, interviews were completed with key informants, identified using snowball sampling through initial contacts and in discussion with interviewees (Lewis-Beck et al. 2004). This was complemented with information from web sites and member lists of relevant NGO and policy networks. To prevent biases, representatives from different actor groups were chosen in the sampling, including representatives from local NGOs and national branches of international NGOs, NGO and multi-actor networks, as well as the private and public sectors (Table 1). All identified actors were connected to issues on agriculture and water.
Table 2 List of the different actor groups and key actors interviewed in the study.
Actor group Organisation Level of work
Local NGO Same Agricultural Improvement Programme (SAIPRO) Local Same and Mwanga Environmental Conservation Advisory
Organisation (SAMECAO)
Local
The Foundation for Civil society National
Rural-Urban Development Initiative (RUDI) National Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM) National Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
(MVIWATA)
National National branch
of international NGO
Kepa International
Oxfam Tanzania International
ActionAid International
Concern Worldwide International
VECO East Africa (Vredeseilanden) International Network Agricultural Non-State Actor Forum (ANSAF) National
Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) National African Conservation Tillage Network (ACTN) Regional Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) Regional
Private sector Katani Ltd Local
Agricultural Council of Tanzania (ACT) National National
government
Ministry of Agriculture, food security, and cooperatives (MAFSC)
National Ministry of Agriculture, food security - Department of
Mechanisation (MAFSC-DM)
National Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology
(COSTECH)
National
15 Due to time and resource limitations the study focuses on actors based in the regions around Dar es Salaam (Figure 4). Most of the interviewed actors were based in the regions of Dar es Salaam and Morogoro, where many actors with a national coverage as well as branches of international actors are based. Interviews were also conducted in Kilimanjaro since plenty of research on AWM and smallholder farmers has been conducted there (Pachpute et al. 2009;
Mul et al. 2011; Enfors et al. 2011). Finally, one interviewee, from the private sector was based in Tanga.
Figure 4 Map over the different regions in Tanzania
The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and two hours and followed an interview guide based on six themes connected to the research questions posed: the work of the organisation;
partners of the organisation and donors; connections to networks; policy influence; advocacy work; and local vs international organisations (Table 3: Appendix 2). All interviews were in English, thus information was not lost through a translator. However, as the mother tongue of the interviewees in all cases except for one, was Swahili, there is a risk of limitations in the expressive capacity of the interviewees as well as the interviewer. Interviews were audio recorded for accuracy unless the interviewee did not feel comfortable with that or the surrounding noise was too loud to make a good recording. One interview was done via e-mail due to time restrictions. All interview data was transcribed and used equally in the analysis.
16 After transcription the interview data was analysed using ATLAS.ti, software for qualitative data analysis. This was done to ensure a systematic analysis of the interview data. The data was thoroughly coded, meaning that segments of information in the data were marked and named (Friese 2012). The themes used for coding the data were based on the research objectives and emerged from an initial analysis (Table 4: Appendix 2). New codes were also added during the coding process in order to explore potential patterns in the data not covered by the initial codes. For reliability the codes were defined and revisited all through the coding to prevent definitional drift (Gibbs 2008).
Text analysis
For the text analysis 12 relevant documents (Table 5) were identified through the official website of the Government of Tanzania as well as through the interviews. They were selected based on their relevance for the study. Thus, including documents that are connected to the sectors of agriculture, water, or development and the inclusion of issues related to AWM.
Table 5 Documents identified for text analysis related to agriculture, development and water.
Sector Document Year
Agriculture Agricultural and Livestock Policy (ALP) 1997 Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2001 Agricultural Sector Development Programme – Framework and
Process document (ASDP-FP)
2003
SAGCOT Greenprint 2012 (DRAFT)
Kilimo Kwanza Resolution 2009
Development Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (TDV) 2000 National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II
(NSGRP) MKUKUTA II
2005 National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 2007
Rural Development Strategy (RDS) 2001
Water National Water Policy (NWP) 2002
National Irrigation Policy (NIP) 2009
National Water Sector Development Strategy (NWSDS) 2006
An analysis of national policy and strategy documents was conducted to cross-examine the findings from the interviews and to identify the ambitions for stakeholder participation (expected participation), to identify how different stakeholders are acknowledged and in connection to which processes (Table 6: Appendix 2).
17 RESULTS
The results are divided into four sections. The first section presents the expected participation of the NGOs based on the text analysis, while the second section discusses the perceived participation of the NGOs, and their continuous work to influence certain issues at different levels of governance. The third section addresses the challenges the NGOs face in their work to influence as well as differences among actors. Finally, the forth section discusses the perceived key points of the NGOs on how they can overcome challenges in their work to influence partly by organising in networks. Figure 5 show the actors included in the study and their coverage.
Figure 5 Showing the actors included in the study and their coverage
From the text analysis it was clear that all documents follow the government’s agenda for poverty reduction and economic growth with a market-based focus. Agriculture is a target sector for economic and social development in Tanzania and the modernisation of the sector is a key target that is highlighted in policies and strategies connected to agriculture, water and development. In connection to AWM, technologies are included, however, definitions vary and the focus differs between different documents.
18 Expected participation
A clear finding from the text analysis is that there is an overall objective to include all relevant stakeholders through participatory processes, for example, in the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) public organisations, the private sector, civil society, and development partners, are identified as key actor groups in the agricultural sector (URT 2001a). Thus, the expected participation, as stated in the policy documents, show that NGOs are clearly included in the policies. The difference lies instead on how they are mentioned and in connection to which processes (policy formulation, implementation and monitoring, and evaluation and review). An overview of the findings can be found in Table 7: Appendix 3.
In all analysed documents except for the Kilimo Kwanza, the participation of NGOs or other CSOs5 is mentioned. They are recognised as key actors for development and the participatory approach adopted would mean that they are included in decision making at different levels.
The analysis clearly shows that the most highlighted role of the NGOs is connected to the policy implementation process, with focus on service provision, investments, and local capacity building and empowerment. This is the case also for the private sector and other key stakeholders in the policies. One example is the Agricultural and Livestock Policy (ALP) which state that the national extension system include the work of Ministries, NGOs and the private sector (URT 1997). The SAGCOT Greenprint strategy mentions local and international NGOs as key groups for out-scaling of the methods of Agriculture Green Growth (AGG)6 through extension services and financial support. The need for capacity building of NGOs and their networks is highlighted in several documents to enhance their capacity to involve in policy implementation, for example in the Greenprint, the ASDS, and the Rural Development Strategy (RDS).
The expected participation of NGOs in the implementation process is clearly stated, and they are formally to participate in the processes of formulation, and evaluation and review, which is where most of the high level decision making and agenda setting takes place. In the RDS, both civil society, in the form of different umbrella NGOs, and the private sector is to be included in the review of data for the monitoring process which is under the responsibility of central and local government. For the annual review of the same document, all key stakeholders, again including both civil society and private sector, are to be included (URT
5 In the analysed document the civil society sector was mentioned either as CSOs in more general terms, NGOs, CBOs, FBOs, or mixed within the documents. In this section they will be mentioned as NGOs when specified in the documents, or as ’other CSOs’ when NGOs is not specifically used.
6 Agriculture Green Growth (AGG) is in the SAGCOT Greenprint defined as the sustainable intensification of smallholder and commercial agriculture while conserving ecological values (Midler et al. 2012).
19 2001c). Participation in review processes is also mentioned for the development of the ASDS, when a draft was revised through stakeholder consultations and workshops, including NGOs as well as private sector actors (URT 2001a).
For the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), more commonly known as the MKUKUTA II, it is stated that the government is reducing its role to core functions of for example policy formulation, which is not stated to include the participation of other actors. However, for the review and consultation process CSOs are included as key stakeholders in the development of the Guideline for the Review and Preparation, as well as in stakeholder consultations to identify gaps in the draft (URT 2010).
The analysis showed that the expected participation of NGOs and other CSOs in the implementation process was clearly stated in all the analysed documents. However, the participation in policy formulation and review, even though often mentioned, was less straightforward.
Perceived participation
This section discusses the perceived participation of NGOs in decision making and their potential to influence. From the interviews, the knowledge about less recent policies on agriculture and water, connected to their work seemed weak, and many times the NGOs did not have clear examples of national policies to associate their work to. The national documents that were mostly mentioned in the interviews were the SAGCOT Greenprint and the MKUKUTA II. A reason for this may be that these are documents which are very current in Tanzania at the moment, that include a participatory approach in all the different policy processes. The example of the SAGCOT was mentioned in several interviews, both as an initiative that is given a lot of attention and also as an example of the participatory process of formulation and review of strategies connected to it. Several interviewees mentioned a concern for lack of implementation of the SAGCOT, especially in relation to the inclusion of smallholder farmers.
“…with SAGCOT we are saying, we are not against the investment but farmers, smallholder farmers should benefit and their land rights should not be violated, yes.” (PELUM)
For the development of the SAGCOT Greenprint strategy, NGOs were invited to participate in the review process of the new strategy document, where the concerns regarding smallholder farmers’ inclusion could be communicated. When the strategy was developed it was circulated to several different stakeholders as part of a participatory process, and the
20 NGOs in the study participated through networks and in coordinated efforts in collaboration with other actors:
"When I was talking about SAGCOT, we need to contribute as part of again a network of partners // one of our partners in Arusha that is called TNRF // Tanzania Natural Resources Forum...” (ActionAid)
Thus, for the Greenprint review stakeholders were invited to participate, and a group of CSOs took the opportunity to provide feedback and recommendations for its further development.
The NGOs also work to influence through continuous advocacy work. If successful, it can contribute to the agenda setting and formulation and review processes through another entry point. In general, the focus of the NGOs differs, and as local NGOs have a narrow focus, international NGOs have a larger spread of activities that can be based in the fact that they have more resources and larger organisations. One example is AWM technologies that are promoted by some of the NGOs and mentioned also in several of the analysed documents (Appendix 3). For the international NGOs that do work with these issues it is usually not a main activity and the focus is on capacity building and empowerment of local actors, and for local NGOs the work with AWM is rather connected to service provision, rather than to high level policy influence or advocacy work. Instead, data from the interviews show that the focus of the advocacy work are issues connected to budget allocation, land ownership, seeds, farmers’ inclusion, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The local NGOs interviewed, especially ones working at local levels, mention that they currently do not work actively with advocacy issues, even though it is an areas getting increased attention in their work. These organisations, such as Same Agricultural Improvement Programme (SAIPRO) and Same and Mwanga Environmental Conservation Advisory Organisation (SAMECAO), focus their work on service delivery, while the international NGOs with the wider focus usually have advocacy as one of several issues to cover. For the international NGOs the advocacy work is taking place mostly at local levels, focusing on empowerment and capacity building of farmers and local organisations, rather than at national level policy advocacy. One example is in the case of Oxfam, they use what they call ‘animators’ who are farmers that are trained in lobbying and advocacy issues:
“These animators are the ones that see if there is a policy which is not well formulated by the government //. They either go straight to the government officials to inform them or they can
21 convey a meeting // if they can discuss the issues, and if all the people in the villages think that it is a problem, then the approach is direct.” (Oxfam)
This way of capacitating local actors, working with empowerment and providing an enabling environment, can also function as a way for the international NGOs to also push for their own agendas. This is a more bottom up approach in their work to influence. For advocacy work at national level most NGOs go through networks such as ANSAF or Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM), as in the example of the national budget allocation for agriculture. The aim is to push for an increase of the public spending on agriculture to at least 10%, following the decision of the Maputo Declaration of 2003, and to introduce agricultural subsidies. Several of the interviewed NGOs advocate for this and do it through the networks.
This advocacy work takes place for example through spreading information in media, as well as in connection to different events and meeting that are taking place around Tanzania. One annual event mentioned by PELUM is the parliamentary meeting at Ubunge grounds:
"…In 2007/2008, we were participating in the CSO exhibitions on the Ubunge grounds in Dodoma, parliamentary, when the parliamentary is sitting in June/July the foundation for civil society, this is an NGO based in Dar es Salaam, was organising exhibition for CSO, so that MP can see what CSOs are doing. So you get time to meet the MPs because they are in the ground, in the parliament ground, so when they are during break time, they can visit the pavilions inside there to see what people are doing, so we also give them the publications, the leaflets, even the CDs, if we have CDs, for us we also shared the CDs on genetic engineering - what is happening in India, what is happening in South Africa, what is happening in Mali, so that they can know - when we are saying we are against, why." (PELUM)
This was an opportunity for PELUM to advocate for their issues by sharing information and meeting high-level decision makers. It is also valuable for the NGOs to connect their advocacy work to already existing events to save the efforts of organising one on their own which would be both more costly and also potentially difficult to attract high level decision makers to. Important to point out is that this meeting has not taken place in the last couple of years, due to reasons such as the general election 2010:
“…they feared that most of the parliamentarians might use the event for campaigning,, because these are the representatives from all over the country coming there you know. They felt maybe it’s not wise to hold it around elections...” (The Foundation of Civil Society)
22 During the last years there has been lacking an organisation to lead the process with the support from the Foundation for Civil Society. This is an opportunity for NGOs to advocate to high level decision makers that is now missing due to lack of coordination.
Dimensions of power
The expected participation is no guarantee for the NGOs to ‘actually’ have an influence. Even though the NGOs have been included in different processes they also come across challenges in their work to influence decision making, such as resistance from the government when not following their set agenda, the gap between expected and perceived participation, and the limitations connected to the differences in strengths between different actors. As mentioned previously, the focus of this study is not the implications of power. However, it needs to be discussed and is thus included as a section to present some of the emerging point of power relations from the study. A challenge that was mentioned in the interviews was when the work of the NGO is not necessarily corresponding to the agenda of the decision makers: Following statement was made in connection to the NGO participating in an event to which they were invited, perceiving that they were not listened to:
“…they ticked the box, consulted you and then dismissed whatever you’ve said; you know what I mean, in favour of their preferred agenda…” (TOAM)
It was pointed out by several interviewees that not following the agenda of the government might have implications on their work. Thus, to have a say in decision making VECO mentions the importance of not keeping the good relations to the decision makers:
“So it’s not like working like an activist, but // trying to discuss together with the government, and trying to see how // the government can improve, yes. So the connections are very important and create an environment where you can network easier with the government, this is very important.” (VECO)
For the NGOs to still have an active role there is a need for a strategy. The power relations are present and sometimes it is up to the NGO to decide how important it is to push for a certain issue:
“You have to pick your battles I guess. TOAM has been doing advocacy work around this for a number of years and I think there is one view that this is going to happen anyway, we got the ones that really want to do something, so we have to look at kind of damage limitation, and some of this stuff. Co-existence, how can organic for example co-exist alongside GMO.”
(TOAM)
23 The perception among the interviewees is that international actors have higher credibility within the government and are thus stronger actors. Mentioned especially by the local NGOs, the possibility to influence national decision making was clearly depending on the strength of the organisation, where international actors as well as the private sector advocacy bodies were perceived by the interviewees as stronger. This might come down to the fact that international NGOs are more well-known and also accepted by the international donor community and government. Local NGOs also work more with service provision at local level (village, ward, district, and region), while international NGOs and networks work to influence either through a local level, using a bottom-up approach, or directly at national level.
Another difference that was brought up was the issue of financial limitations and knowledge.
For local NGOs financial resources was mentioned as a key constraint and the difference between local and international NGOs in accessing funding was pointed out by both parts.
One international NGO explained their advantage in these words:
“…of course talking about most donors are in the northern part, and the, most of the big NGOs are coming from the north, so even that one is easy to fundraise. They know where to go and what to do, which is not easy for the local agencies." (Concern Worldwide)
This is an important point both in the sense of resource limitations as well as for the different strengths and power relations within the NGO sector. Local NGOs may receive funds from international NGOs at the cost of international NGOs influencing their agenda.
NGO and multi-actor networks
Joining formal networks brings several benefits to the members which strengthen them in their work. Several issues that were pointed out as challenges in the previous section the NGOs can overcome by joining networks as important platforms for knowledge sharing, financial resources, and important connections. In relation to financial resources several NGOs mention the benefit of accessing information in their search for funding:
“There are a lot of things that they get from the networks, // for example there are issues of finance, or like the issue of information. When you are running an NGO you need funds, so from networks you can get a lot of information about calls for proposals, this is one of the things.” (VECO)
Important to point out is that again there are differences between actors, this time in how they experience the benefits of joining a network. Local NGOs, especially ones working at local level can be more disconnected from the national government through spatial boundaries,
24 financial limitations, and as mentioned earlier, not having the same legitimacy in the government as many international NGOs or local NGOs working at national level, thus it can be even more important for them to join a network if there is something they want to push for.
A local NGO in Same District points out the need for these networks not the least for actors that work at local level, within a limited area:
"…for the organisations which are operating only in one or two districts, or in one region, they have to join hands with others. For them it’s not very easy…” (Samecao)
Joining hands with others is highlighted by both local and international NGOs as key for them to access national level decision making. Not mentioned by the interviewees that can be relevant to consider in a decentralised system, is the potential value for international NGOs to connect with local actors through the networks. There is a common perception that working alone on specific issues does not generate enough strength for individual NGOs to be able to make a difference:
“…it is very important to come together when it comes to advocacy, because of the issue of representation, the issue of legitimacy, if it is only one organisation talking about something, then the government will say: this is your view but it is not a view of the majority…” (VECO) This international NGO points out the need of approaching the government as a majority, but also brings up the issues of legitimacy and representation as benefits of joining networks, to be able to be heard by the government. The networks function as a platform for knowledge sharing. For local NGOs, especially ones working at local level there is a great value in joining networks to access knowledge from other actors working with the same issues. For the international NGO instead there is a value to access local knowledge and connections on the ground to be able to strengthen their work:
"The local agencies, they have that local knowledge. They have the understanding of how to work with the community, and that’s why for us, we are saying we are not supposed to go directly to the community; we have to work with them." (Concern Worldwide)
Some of the international NGOs highlighted their role in sharing knowledge within the networks, building the capacity of the other members. This can also be seen as a strategy for stronger actors to spread their agenda, an indication of the power relations that are present within networks.
25 To have an influence, knowledge on the issue and empirical evidence were pointed out as necessary in order to bring well formulated proposals into the discussions with decision makers:
“…if it is a farmers’ network or if it is a network of NGOs the main bottleneck is how you can build evidence from the field and then be able to present to the policy makers…” (VECO) Without being able to bring strong cases is not possible to push for issues that are not already promoted by the government. The network can join forces of the members, use existing knowledge and access important information to achieve good evidence to pushing for their joined issues. It was clearly stated in the interviews that except for knowledge and empirical evidence, there is a need for connections with decision makers to be able to influence:
“You should also create some links, connections, with people who have major influence. //…it should be like an eye opener to the government that it could be better if you go this way, from the research you saw this…” (VECO)
This international NGO points out the need to connect with influential individuals, to be able to bring up the evidence found, and to make the government listen to what is said. Another interviewee mentions the same issue from a slightly different approach:
"A critical issue in successful advocacy work is good relations with the government and local authorities, and to create a sense of ownership for the government, as well as collaborating together, both government and NGOs //." (TOAM)
Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM) highlights the need of good relations with the government, and the importance to create a sense of ownership for the government. This is different in the sense that it highlights the importance to bring the government on-board on the issues, while VECO mention the need for connections to influential people to be able to convince the government. The same actors also point out the benefits of a network in linking them to decision makers, and for them to make use of already settled relations:
“…others have good connections with a certain number of persons depending on the issue.
From the network it is easier to know with this issue that a certain NGO has connections to a certain decision maker or a certain ministry. It’s easier to influence that way.” (VECO) VECO highlights the connections that individual NGOs within the network can have with specific decision makers, which is a case of sharing the connections, information and
26 knowledge an organisation has with other members. TOAM brings up the same positive effect but through another perspective:
"… for example ANSAF they have now 30 or 40 organisations mainly NGOs and they are an advocacy organisation, // they have got a good relationship with the government, we have been using their auspices to get messages into government, also to get messages into ANSAF, to help to inform the different actors there about the benefits and dis-benefits of some of these modernisation agendas." (TOAM)
Compared to the first mentioned approach, this is more related to the legitimacy of the network in itself, and using already established relationships with the government to get through and push for the agenda of the NGO. These kind of informal connections that are mentioned often pass by the formal structure of NGO participation and are keys for the NGOs and the networks to have an influence.
As shown in this chapter, the benefits of joining networks that are well-coordinated and that are viewed well by the government gives many benefits to their members. It strengthens the organisations’ potential to influence also at higher levels through many actors joining forces to bring the government on-board when pushing for certain issues. This can be a way for NGOs to overcome the challenges posed by power relation which creates the gap in the expected and perceived participation.
27 DISCUSSION
Participation
To be formally included in decision making processes through a participatory approach may sound like a path towards influence. However, despite a well-developed policy environment there is no guarantee for successful implementation of this approach. Although a participatory approach is adopted in the governance of social-ecological systems there is a gap between the participation that is formally mandated and the actual participation (Dagnino 2008).
The study show that NGOs and other CSOs are formally included through participatory processes in decision making, what here is referred to as expected participation. The outcome of the participation is closely connected to the level of participation and the within which policy process it is taking place. The participation of NGOs in national policies and strategies connected to agriculture, water and development is mainly connected to the implementation process (service provision and investments), rather than the formulation, or evaluation and review processes. This implies that the NGOs are still kept out of higher level decision making, and are instead given a role of providing services that would otherwise fall under the responsibilities of the government, something that has been identified in research (Dagnino 2008; Pollard and Court 2008; Hydén and Mmuya 2008). Further discussed in research is whether the civil society sector is contributing to poverty reduction when their main role is as implementers. Through this inclusion NGOs become an extension of the government’s arm to which they are then answering to. They are also accountable to the donors funding them (Pollard and Court 2008; Michael 2004), connecting the issues of participation and power relations between state, donors and NGOs. What need to be further discussed are the leverage points of where in the policy processes the NGOs should put their resources to achieve the highest effect. Focusing the resources on the implementation process might be easier since this is where NGOs are formally included.
Despite the fact that the main participation of NGOs is connected to the implementation of policies, it still occurs in the formulation and review processes. It is an on-going trend to include NGOs also in these processes, and advocacy work as one of several main focuses, has become common among NGOs. In Tanzania, the SAGCOT Greenprint is an example where NGOs participated in the review process and they had to opportunity to send a response suggesting changes for the further development of the strategy. It is beyond the scope of this study to go into detail of whether the suggestions were incorporated accordingly. Another
28 important aspect to consider is who gets to represent the CSO sector, and actually add to the response.
International and local NGOs that work with advocacy mainly focus their work at local levels alongside empowerment and capacity building of local actors to strengthen their potential advocate for themselves. This can indirectly influence decision making without participating formally in the processes, a potential way for these NGOs to push for their own agenda through a bottom up approach. For individual NGOs, this can be a strategy to indirectly influence decision making at different levels. Thus, influencing is not only the result of the level of participation in different policy processes. Instead, since the formal participation many times is connected to the implementation process that might even be a less efficient way to influence at national level.
Power
Power relations between the state, donors and civil society have been identified as affecting the potential of NGOs to influence decision making (Hydén and Mmuya 2008). One example is the gap between the perceived and expected participation, discussed in this study, implying that even though formally included through a participatory approach there is no guarantee that NGOs will have an actual influence.
Discussed in research are the challenges for NGOs to influence issues that are not corresponding to the agenda of the government or even challenging their work (Hydén and Mmuya 2008; Haapanen 2007; Banks and Hulme 2012). As the numbers of NGOs are increasing they are moving further away from the CBOs and grassroots based organisations, becoming more formal actors that are to an increased extent included in policy making. There is an idea that NGOs function as representatives of the civil society, however, it is relevant to discuss if this representation is possible at the same time as they need to follow the path of their funders and the government (Shivji 2004; Dagnino 2008).
As mentioned in interviews for this study, sometimes the NGOs are represented during different decision making processes or consultation, however, with a feeling that this participation is rather a case of representation where the decision makers ‘tick a box’ when including the NGOs but still do not adhere to what they have to add to the discussion unless following their preferred agenda. This corresponds to research showing that CSOs that do not follow the set agenda have small chances of having any real influence. Then it can be
29 discussed how efficient it is for development that the only influence that NGOs can have is connected to them actually following the set agenda of the government.
Another issue that was brought up in the interviews was the opportunities for NGOs to share knowledge and experiences within the formal networks of whim they are members. This clearly benefits both local and international NGOs, where all NGOs can access important knowledge. For international NGOs there is another dimension of this, where the networks can function as a platform for them to spread their agenda. Thus, there are clearly elements of power relations to take into account not only between government, donors and the civil society, but also within the NGO or multi-actor networks.
Networks
The trend in Tanzania of NGOs working with policy influence at national level through formal networks is clear. However, a network in itself is not sufficient to overcome the power barriers in decision making. As the example from both TOAM and VECO there is a need for features of good coordination to bring benefits connected to national level influence to its members. This can be done to overcome existing power barriers when advocating issues that are not promoted by the national government. By ‘joining hands’, several NGOs in this study have pointed out that they gained strength which, together with clear evidence, is needed to convince the government to discuss the issues. Another feature is good relations to the decision makers, mentioned by interviewees as key to be heard by the government. Evidence and good relations to the government have been identified in previous research as keys for success, as well as the need to properly communicate evidence (Pollard & Court 2008).
These features are critical for successful influence and can be achieved through networks by connecting actors with decision makers as well as sharing knowledge and experiences.
Within the networks it is also interesting to identify the different strengths of the members.
The networks might help the NGOs to overcome different challenges. However, the strength of the members within a network also differs, where international NGOs are stronger and are able to push for their own agenda within the networks. Thus, for individual members to have equal amount of influence within the network is not self-evident.
For this study the participation and potential influence of NGOs have been discussed in relation to poverty reduction through up-scaling of AWM technologies. Even though NGOs have an increased potential to influence at national level through the organisation in networks, the issues that are advocated for are not currently related to these technologies. Instead
30 interviewees mention their focus on budget allocation for agriculture, land ownership, farmer participation, and GMOs. Thus, it can be discussed whether this is an appropriate path for up- scaling of such technologies that are not necessarily the main focus of the NGOs.
Study limitations
If this study was to be repeated the same results would emerge and it seems clear that for the context of sub-Saharan Africa it is possible to make generalisations based on the findings.
However, there are some limitations of the study that need to be acknowledged. First, for this study it would have been useful to combine qualitative interviews and text analysis with a social network analysis to strengthen the findings and to identify informal networks that can play a heavy role in decision making. This was done in the example of Stein et al. (2009) where insights of the web of social relations were made which has implications for the management of water resources in Tanzania. Second, the division of actors into different groups for the study can be a limitation. Some actors fit into more than one group, for example PELUM is both a network and a registered NGO, but is in this study listed as a network. This does not necessarily have implications on the results of the study but can have an effect in the presentation and discussions of the findings. Third, the selection of key actors and documents for the study was partly based on member’s lists of the NGO and multi-actor networks. This can result in participants that have a biased view on the importance of networks for their work to influence. There is also a risk to miss other important actors that were not connected to formal or informal networks of the actors that was included in the interviews. The interpretations and potential biases of the researcher are also important to point out. This can be evident in the interviews as well as in the process of transcribing and coding of data. To minimise the limitation of this, all the data was transcribed and coded and it was cross-checked to prevent a lock-in to the initially emerged codes.
31 CONCLUSION
NGOs play an increasingly heavy role in decision making processes in Tanzania, at least in a formal sense through the expected participation. This study shows that NGOs are foremost included as participants for the implementation of the policies, becoming a more formalised actor group functioning as an extension of the government and the donors’ agenda setting in service delivery rather than acting as stakeholders in a participatory policy formulation or review processes. The NGOs potential to influence is limited by the existing power relations within the decision making processes. If advocating for issues that do not adhere to the government’s agenda, there is a possibility that they are counteracted by the government.
Joining networks can potentially be a strategy to overcome existing power barriers and strengthen the voice of the NGOs and other actors within the networks. However, to succeed the networks need to be well-coordinated and bring clear evidence on the issues, as well as keeping important connections to decision makers. If these features are achieved then the voices of actors organising to advocate for the same issues can find enough strength to influence national policy processes.
32 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, a special thanks to my supervisors Jennie Barron and Timos Karpouzoglou for all the support along the way. I have learnt so much and appreciate you challenging me in my work. I am grateful for all the help and support that I got from SEI -Dar es Salaam and the Sokoine University of Agriculture, and I want to acknowledge everyone who participated in the interviews, making this study possible. Last but not least I want to thank my family and friends for the support and for reminding me of the world outside of the thesis, and of course my thesis group and the wonderful class of SERSD 2013 for great company and support during this process. The study was funded by the WHaTeR-project and by a grant from Sida.
