The role of NGOs in agricultural water development policy ...630876/FULLTEXT01.pdf · ACT...
Transcript of The role of NGOs in agricultural water development policy ...630876/FULLTEXT01.pdf · ACT...
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.
33
LITERATURE CITED
Banks, N. and D. Hulme. 2012. The role of NGOs and civil society in development and
poverty reduction. BWPI Working Paper 171. Brooks World Poverty Institute. The University
of Manchester. Manchester, UK.
Barron, J., S. Noel, M. Malesu, A. Oduor, G. Shone, and J. Rockström. 2008.
Agricultural water management in smallholder farming systems: the value of soft components
in mesoscale interventions. SEI project report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Biazin, B., G. Sterk, M. Temesgen, A. Abdulkedir, and L. Stroosnijder. 2012. Rainwater
harvesting and management in rainfed agricultural systems in sub-Saharan Africa – A review.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 47-48:139–151.
Bijlsma, R.M., P.W.G. Bots, H.A. Wolters, and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2011. An empirical
analysis of stakeholders’ influence on policy development: the role of uncertainty handling.
Ecology and society 16(1): 51.
Bratton, M. 1990. Non-governmental organizations in Africa: can they influence public
policy?. Development and change 21(1):87-118.
Bratton, M. 1989. The politics of Government-NGO relations in Africa. World development
17(4):569–587.
Cote, M. and A.J. Nightingale. 2011. Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating
social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography
36(4):475–489.
Dagnino, E. 2008. Challenge to participation, citizenship and democracy: perverse
confluence and displacement of meanings. Pages 55-70 in A. J. Bebbington, S. Hickey, and
D. C. Mitlin, editors. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development
alternatives. Zed Books Ltd, London, UK.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction: The dicipline and practice of qualitative
research. Pages 1-19 in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, editors. The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK.
DFID. 2004. Use of civil society organisations to raise the voice of the poor in agricultural
policy. UK.
34
Edwards, M. 1999. NGO performance - What breeds success? New evidence from South
Asia. World development 27(2):361-374.
Edwards, M. and D. Hulme. 1992. Scaling up NGO impact on development: learning from
experience. Development in practice 2(2):77–91.
Enfors, E., J. Barron, H. Makurira, J. Rockström, and S. Tumbo. 2011. Yield and soil
system changes from conservation tillage in dryland farming: A case study from North
Eastern Tanzania. Agricultural Water Management 98(11):1687–1695. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378377410000764 [Accessed March 11, 2013].
[In press]
Friese, S. 2012. Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. SAGE Publications Ltd, London,
UK.
Gaventa, J. 2006. Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis. IDS Bulletin 37(6):23–33.
Gibbs, G. 2008. Analyzing Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK.
Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2009. A handbook for Integrated Water Resources
Management in basins. Sweden
Guijt, I. 2008. Civil society participation as the focus of northern NGO support: the case of
Dutch co-financing agencies. Pages 153-174 in A. J. Bebbington, S. Hickey, and D. C. Mitlin,
editors. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. Zed Books
Ltd, London, UK.
Hatibu, N. 2005. Institutionalised scaling-up and uptake promotion of outputs from soil and
water management research in East and Central Africa. R8381 Final technical report Annex
A. Natural resource systems programme.
Huitema, D. and S. Meijerink. 2010. Realizing water transitions: the role of policy
entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and society 15(2): 26.
Hydén, G. and M. Mmuya. 2008. Power and policy slippage in Tanzania – Discussing
national ownership of development. Sida Studies No. 21. Sweden.
Haapanen, T. 2007. Civil society in Tanzania. Kepa's working papers No. 19. Available at:
http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0002929/CS_Tanzania_Haapanen.pdf [Accessed 17
January, 2013]
35
Kerr, J. 2002. Watershed development projects in India: An Evaluation. Research report 127.
International food policy research institute, Washington, DC.
Korfmacher, K.S. 2001. The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environmental
Management 27(2):161–176.
Lewis-Beck, M.S., A. Bryman, and T.F. Liao. 2004. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods Vol.3. SAGE Publications Inc, US.
Lutabingwa, J., K.R. Gray, and E.P. Skinner. 1997. NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa:
Developing critical capacity for policy advocacy. International journal of world peace
14(3):35–70.
Michael, S. 2004. Undermining development: the absence of power among local NGOs in
Africa. Indiana University Press, Indiana, US.
Midler, J.C., L.E. Buck, A.K. Hart, S.J. Scherr. 2012. SAGCOT Greenprint: A green
growth investment framework for the Southern agricultural growth corridor of Tanzania.
[DRAFT]
Mul, M.L., J.S. Kemerink, N.F. Vyagusa, M.G. Mshana, P. van der Zaag, and H.
Makurira. 2011. Water allocation practices among smallholder farmers in the South Pare
Mountains, Tanzania: The issue of scale. Agricultural Water Management 98(11):1752–1760.
NEPAD. 2013. How CAADP works. Available at: http://www.nepad-caadp.net/how-caadp-
works.php [Accessed May 27, 2013].
Pachpute, J.S., S.D. Tumbo, H. Sally, and M.L. Mul. 2009. Sustainability of Rainwater
Harvesting Systems in Rural Catchment of Sub-Saharan Africa. Water Resources
Management, 23(13):2815–2839.
Pollard, A. and J. Court. 2008. How civil society organizations use evidence to influence
policy processes. Pages 133-152 in A. J. Bebbington, S. Hickey, and D. C. Mitlin, editors.
Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. Zed Books Ltd,
London, UK.
Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature
review. Biological conservation 141:2417-2431.
36
Rockström, J., J. Barron and P. Fox. 2002. Rainwater management for increased
productivity among small-holder farmers in drought prone environments. Physics and
chemistry of the earth 27:949–959.
SAGCOT. 2013. About us. Available at: http://www.sagcot.com/about-us/what-is-sagcot/
[Accessed May 26, 2013].
Shivji, I.G. 2004. Reflections on NGOs in Tanzania: what we are, what we are not, and what
we ought to be. Development in Practice 14(5):680–688.
Stein, C., H. Ernstson, J. Barron. 2009. A social network approach to analyzing water
governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Physics and chemistry of the Earth
[In press]
Tanzania National Business Council (TNBC). 2009. The Kilimo Kwanza Resolution.
UN. 1992. AGENDA 21 - United Nations conference on environment & development. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
UNEP. 2009. Rainwater harvesting: a lifeline for human well-being. Available at:
http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Rainwater_Harvesting_090310b.pdf [Accessed March
25, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1997. Agricultural and livestock policy. Available at:
http://www.tanzania.go.tz/pdf/agricultureandlivestockpolicy.pdf [Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2003. Agricultural sector development programme -
Framework and process document.
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2001a. Agricultural sector development strategy.
Available at: http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/agriculturalsectordevelopmentstrategy.pdf
[Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2013. Governance. Available at:
http://www.tanzania.go.tz/governance.html [Accessed May 27, 2013].
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2005. National strategy for growth and reduction of
poverty, MKUKUTA. Available at:
http://www.povertymonitoring.go.tz/Mkukuta/MKUKUTA_MAIN_ENGLISH.pdf [Accessed
January 17, 2013]
37
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2007. National adaptation programme of action.
Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/tza01.pdf [Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2009. National irrigation policy. [DRAFT]. Available
at: http://www.maji.go.tz/userfiles/Irrigation%20Policy.pdf [Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2001b. National policy on non-governmental
organisations. Available at: http://www.bot-
tz.org/MFI/Library/NGO_Policy_2002_English.pdf [Accessed March 22, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2010. National strategy for growth and reduction of
poverty, MKUKUTA II. Available at:
http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Tanzania%20UR/Tanzania_MKUKUTA-II-2010-
2015.pdf [Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2002a. National water policy. Available at:
http://www.ewura.go.tz/pdf/NationalWaterPolicy.pdf [Accessed October 10, 2012]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2006. National water sector development strategy.
Available at: https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/migration/Entwicklungsbank-
Startseite/Development-Finance/About-Us/Local-Offices/Sub-Saharan-Africa/Office-
Tanzania/Activities-in-Tanzania/National-Water-Sector-Development-Strategy.pdf [Accessed
January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2002b. Non-governmental organisations act.
Available at: http://www.fiu.go.tz/NGOact.pdf [Accessed May 11, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2001c. Rural development strategy. Available at:
http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/ruraldevelopmentstrategy.pdf [Accessed January 17, 2013]
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2000. Tanzania development vision 2025. Available
at: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/pdf/theTanzaniadevelopmentvision.pdf [Accessed March 5,
2013]
Walker, B. and D. Salt. 2006. Recilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems in a changing
world. Island Press, Washington, DC.
38
APPENDIX 1
Table 1 Questions and sub-questions and the data sources for addressing them in this study.
Questions Sub-questions Data source
RQ1. Do NGOs play a role
in influencing decision
making processes?
1.1 What is the expected
participation of NGOs different
policy processes?
Text analysis of national
policy documents in
Tanzania
1.2 How do NGOs perceive their
participation in the different policy
processes?
Qualitative interviews
with NGOs and NGO and
multi-actor networks.
1.3 How do NGOs work with
advocacy to influence at different
levels?
Qualitative interviews
with NGOs including
NGO and multi-actor
networks.
RQ2. How do NGOs
coordinate their work to
strengthen their potential
to influence?
2.1 What are the perceived main
points for successful influencing
for the NGOs?
Qualitative interviews
with NGOs including
NGO and multi-actor
networks.
2.2 Are there differences between
different actors in their potential to
influence?
Qualitative interviews
with NGOs including
NGO and multi-actor
networks, and private
sector.
Text analysis of national
policy documents in
Tanzania
2.3 What are the benefits of
joining a network for the different
actors?
Qualitative interviews
with NGOs, NGO and
multi-actor networks, and
private sector
representatives.
39
APPENDIX 2
Table 3 Interview guide with the themes covered as well as potential follow up questions
No. Topic Follow up questions
1 The work of the organisation How do you work? Where? What is the
focus?
2 Partners of the organisation and donors Do you work with any partners? Who
are the funders of the organisation?
3 Connections to networks Are you connected to any networks?
What benefits/challenges does it bring?
4 Policy influence Do you work to influence any policies
or decision making?
5 Advocacy work Do you work with advocacy issues?
6 Local vs international organisations What are the differences between
different types of actors?
Table 4 Themes that derived from an initial analysis of the interview data and used as a base in the
coding process.
Theme Explanation
Advocacy work How does the actors work with advocacy issues
Influence Examples of how the actors has been able to influence
Collaborations and meeting platforms Factors/ that have enabled the actors to influence
Differences between actors The differences between different type of actors
Table 6 Framework for text analysis of national policy, strategy and programme documents, as well as
actor’s official documents and websites.
Theme Explanation
Water harvesting How it is mentioned and defined
NGO inclusion Are they included and how
Private sector inclusion
Organisation focus
Are they included and how
The focus areas of the organisation
APPENDIX 3
Table 7 Resulting data from the text analysis, showing the participation of NGOs in policy and strategy documents in Tanzania connected to the
agricultural, development and water sectors.
Sector Document Year Document
information
AWM/WHT NGO participation In which processes
Agriculture Agricultural and
Livestock Policy
(ALP)
1997 Merged older
agricultural and
livestock policies of
1983 (URT 1997).
Do not mention
rainwater harvesting,
but briefly soil and
water conservation.
Yes, emphasis on their
role for extension
services.
Implementation
Agriculture Sector
Development
Strategy (ASDS)
2001 Focus on poverty
reduction through
commercialisation of
the agricultural sector.
(URT 2001).
Mention a plan for the
development of a
programme for soil and
water management
practices, rainwater
harvesting and storage.
Yes, but mainly for
service provision. Also
participatory process of
the development of the
strategy together with
other stakeholders.
Formulation
Implementation
and monitoring
Evaluation and
review
Agriculture Sector
Development
Programme -
Framework and
Process document
(ASDP)
2003 Programme for
implementation of the
ASDS, focusing on
agricultural
productivity and
private investments
(URT 2003).
Highlights the
importance of several
different technologies,
such as rainwater
harvesting, irrigation,
mechanisation, and
reduced tillage.
Mostly grouped under
the private sector with
producers, agribusiness,
financial institutions,
and small-scale
farmers' associations,
then also included in
the M&E process.
Implementation
Monitoring and
evaluation
SAGCOT
Greenprint
2012
DRAFT
Focus on the
modernisation and
commercialisation of
the agricultural sector,
and partnerships
(SAGCOT 2012)
Highlights WHT and
irrigation
improvements as
priority areas for
investments.
Yes, but they primarily
mentioned as investors
and as important actors
for extension services,
to facilitate out-scaling
of the promoted
methods.
Implementation
Kilimo Kwanza 2009 Focus on a green
revolution for
Tanzania with
Not mentioned. Not mentioned. Focus
is on private sector
inclusion.
-
41
commercialisation of
the agricultural sector
(TNBC 2009).
Development Tanzania
Development
Vision 2025
(TDV)
2000 Focus on the social
and economic
development in
Tanzania (URT
2000).
Not mentioned. Mentioned but only
related to their role in
contributing to the
objectives and to the
work of the government
to build capacity of the
civil society and other
actors.
Implementation
National Strategy
for Growth and
Reduction of
Poverty (NSGRP)
MKUKUTA II
2010 A continuation of the
MKUKUTA I aiming
for economic growth
and poverty
alleviation (URT
2010).
Rainwater harvesting,
irrigation and soil and
water conservation are
mentioned as strategies
for agricultural growth
and for food security.
Yes, recognised as key
actors for poverty
reduction. Participate in
the monitoring and
evaluation process at
different levels, and the
review process of
MKUKUTA I.
Implementation
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Reveiw
National
Adaptation
Programme of
Action (NAPA)
2007 Identifies climate
change related
vulnerabilities of key
economic sectors in
Tanzania (URT
2007).
WHT and irrigation are
mentioned for use both
in agriculture, for
households and for the
industry.
Yes, specifically
mentioned for project
implementation.
Implementation
Rural
Development
Strategy (RDS)
2001 Focus on economic
growth and poverty
alleviation (URT
2001b).
WHT are only briefly
recommended for
suitable areas.
Recognised as key
actors. Not included in
the strategy
development but in
formulation of the
District Programmes
implementation, and in
the review.
Formulation
Implementation
and monitoring
Evaluation and
review
42
Water National Water
Policy (NWP)
2002 Taking into account
changes in the water
sector and the macro-
economic
environment (URT
2002).
WHT are highlighted as
one of several issues for
rural water supply.
Yes, especially through
service provision and
investments. Emphasise
the importance of links
between public, civil
and private sectors.
Implementation
and monitoring
Evaluation
National Irrigation
Policy (NIP)
2009 The first national
policy for irrigation,
to direct the
development of
irrigation (URT
2009).
AWM and rainwater
harvesting for irrigation
is highlighted to
increase availability
and utilisation of water
fir agriculture.
Yes, but focusing on
their role for service
provision. Included in
formulation involving
participation of all
stakeholder groups.
Formulation
Implementation
and monitoring
Evaluation
National Water
Sector
Development
Strategy
(NWSDS)
2006 Strategy prepared to
further develop the
aim of the NWP and
an implementation
framework (URT
2006).
Rainwater harvesting is
mentioned both for
agriculture and for
households.
Yes, in all processes
but emphasis on the
service provision and
investments. Highlights
the importance for
linkages between all
different stakeholders.
Formulation
Implementation
and monitoring
Evaluation