The Development Of Community-owned Natural Resource-based Enterprises: Practical Lessons From Mbomipa And The Wildlife Sector In Tanzania (summary)

THEDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY. OWNEDNATURAL RESOURCE.BASED ENTERPRISES: PRACTICAT TESSONS FROMMBOMIPAAND THEWILDTIFE SECTOR IN TANZANIA

Martin T. Walsh MBOMIPA Project,Iringa, Tanzania& Natural ResourcesInstitute,University of Greenwich,U.K

i{#.

i

4'4r:

'

'1 ,

paperpresentedto aWorkshopon CommonPool Resourcesin Tanzania, New Africa Hotel,Dar es Salaam,Tar:r;ania,14December2001

Dr. Martin Walsh MBOMIPA Project P.O.BOX398 Iringa Tanzania tgl.026-27A2686 fax.026-2702807 [email protected]

CONTENTS

Acronyms & Abbreviations Map of the MBOMIPA Project Area

L

lntroduction

2

MBOMIPA and CPRs

3

Political and economicconditionsof development

3.1

Empowermentand all that it entails

3.2

Significant benefitsof different kinds

3.3

External political and economicsupport

4

Conclusions

References

l\4|Lti\tll'A (!'arrreSurvc,ysard paiicilxttoq, N,lcrtitotitlg[.rq]nn)nE

(U (D I

_q)

o o

o

c)

iil* J o ) g q )

5\

c.O

'\

c E

-o I

o

it >

z

,/i,>

I-:

E

t , t l lI , l

*,o E'X (!> oc.

o o

VE

g'

"\t_/

Co

.E Y

r%

8..

' -

= I

(g E

(U

CI

o

J

(o

E o

z

E (o

r\ tri.l2I,,

O CI

5

E 3 .Y

(g

t. ( ,

,i " ,, lt i

b

O

t /

i

r l o

o

g -E# i t I

/ t ' l t l'I

o

J

o P P

ll

il

.-

(u

L

C)

( E

)

s

l.

(o 0,

lJ

\ . : ) 6

l

>

'=

,'i' -

E

o =

IL

o

q)

\t'r

0-

/, '

L

/ Fa .Y

(rJ t, V

o

( o t

o co

o C!

t--t,.

o I Y

I

l<

I

t-

c0

o

-

o

o-

o)

(U c

o o)

.o o

o q,

z

E (o

c (o -)

tr

;o) c J

u

zo u o

E (U

E f

.o

$

v.

v, o)

o, c C' o f

o (, = J

oz

u

I

OUTLINE OF MAIN POINTS ANDARGUMEFIT (DRAFT)

THE DEVELOPMENTOF COMMUNITY-OWNED NATURALRESOURCE-BASED ENTERPRISES: PRACTICAL LESSONSFROM MBOMIPA AhtI) TIIE WILDLIFE SECTOR IN TANZAI\IA Martin T. Walsh

Outline of main points andargument

I

Introduction

Subjectofthe paper: r

Managementand use of wildlife as a common pool resource(CPR) in Tarzania.

o Governmentand donor-sponsored efforts to developnew instifutionsto performthis role. o Focus on the creation of 'community-owned natural resource-based enterprises'and analysisof someof the critical factorswhich favour their development. .

Why I haveusedthis title, andsomeof its wider implications.

In the contextof this workshop: o Supportand illustrationof one of Prof. Shivji's main themes:that CPRs andtheir management mustbe approached in termsof an understanding of the wider political and economiccontext- and social history - in which theyareembedded. r

To question and perhapsmodify some of his specific conclusionsespeciallythoserelatingto wildlife management and the potentialrole of village management institutions.

ilIBOilIIPA

and CPRS

MBOMIPA: Examples from MBOMIPA = 'Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga'. A communitywildlife management projectnow working with 19 villages in ldodi and Pawagadivisions,Iringa district, borderingRuahaNational Park. o A collaborationbetween the Wildlife Division and TANAPA in the Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism,and supportedby DFID (U.K. government). o Projectbeganin October1997,inheritingthe CBC componentof REWMP (RuahaEcosystemWildlife ManagementProject),which beganin 1993, More thaneightyearsof projectexperience. r

One of the leading pilot CWM projects in Tanzania,contributing to developmentof the new Wildlife Policy of Tanzania(March 1998),WMA Guidelines,andreviewof legalframework(WCA of 1974).

o MBOMIPA is also the name of an almost-registered CBO (communitybasedorganisation)establishedto managewildlife resourceson behalf of the 19participatingvillages(a proto-WMA). CPRs: Academictheorisationof cPRs hasplayedlittle role in the developmentof MBOMIPA, either the project or the CBO, thoughthere has been some CPR-related researchin the areaandneighbouringUsangu. Other developmentagendashavemouldedthe project(s),including CBC, CBNRM,'sustainable livelihoods',and'povertyreduction'. Difficult to identifi 'the commons'in the catchmentof the Great Ruaha, unless abstracted from complex historical realities, risking gross oversimplification. Conceptualising'wildlife' as a CPR (or set of CPRs) also has its giventhe mobility of the fauna. challenges, The human history of the Great Ruaha River and its environs can be describedat one level in terms of competitionand conflict over natural resources, e.g. 1950s:ejectionfrom southernextensionof RungwaGR (gazetted1951).

1964: creationof RuahaNationalPark andfurther exclusion 1984:gazettement of Lunda-MkwambiGCA: exclusionfrom the north and restrictionon activitiesin the south,the legal preseryeof residenthunters andillegaltargetof poacherslargeandsmall. (a muchsimplifiedhistory) .

3

Ripein 1993for a pilot CBC programme

Political and economicconditionsof development

A commonquestion: o "What are the key ingredients required to establish successful CBC/CBNRMinitiatives?" A rough andreadyanswer. o First, empowerment,i.e. the transfer of significant powers to project villagesby higherauthorities(WD) o Second,provision of significantbenefits,materialand otherwise,to the participatingvillagesand villagers. I confess,however,that I havenever beforegivenmy answerdeeperconsideration. But do thesehold up? 3.1

Empowermentand all that it entails

A caution: I

'Empowerment'is often usedglibly, needto be carefulin definingwho and what andhow.

Empoweringthe MBOMIPA villages; o The paradigmaticinstancewas the Director of Wildlife's endorsementof villages'right to raisea 'village levy' on the gamequota,in effect allowing themto sellhuntingrightsto residenthunters. o This was done at the end of REWMP in 1996 and was the start of significantincomesfor participatingvillages(originally9) - seethe Tables. e.g. in 1996 hunters had to pay villagers an averageof more than Tsh.100,000 for a buffalo;now Tsh.250,000.

Table l: Village and District Incomesfrom Saleof the ResidentHunting Quota (LMS,Idodi and PawagaDivisions),199{t-2000 INCOMES FROM RESIDENT IIT]NTTI{G

1996 (Tsh.)

1997 (Tsh.)

1998 (Tsh.)

1999 (TshJ

2m0 (Tsh.)

Idodi & Pawaga Villages (n=9)

3,703,619 6,100,000 10,603,99812,000,00020,039,000*

Iringa District (excludinglicence fees)

1,402,100 2,100,000 2,700,000 3,000,000

TOTAL WLLAGE & DISTRICT INCOMES

5,105,719 81200,(x)0 13"303898 15,{n0r(xr0 201038,U)0

0

* This sumwas sharedamongall l8 villagesthenparticipatingin the prqect. Previously only the 9 villages with hunting blocks on their land had sharedthe proceedsof resident hunting.

Table 2: Reportedvillage rncomesfromZio/o Shareof LicenceFeesfrom Tourist Hunting (LMN, PawagaDivision), 199G2000 (sumsroundedto nearestTsh.) INCOMES FROM TOURIST H{JNTING

1996 (Tsh.)

1997 (Tsh.)

1998 (Tsh.)

1999 (Tsh.)

PawagaVillages (n = 7)

0

1,750,000 4,128,059 4,106,499

TOTAL VILLAGE INCOMES

0

1,750,000

4,12E.'059 4,t06'A99

2mo (Tsh.)

0**

0

** In this yearthe district authoritieschoseto distributea portion ofthe available fundsto villages in neighbouringIsimani division, gving none to the 18 MBOMIPA villages which hadagreedtobeginpoolingtheirincomefrom differentsources.

o But this was only the culminationof a seriesof actsestablishingvillages' newrights(with projectsupportandadvice). o Nonetheless, this empowerment was fragile in somerespects:it was based on an administrativedecision,not creativeuseof availableprovisionsin the WCA of 1974. As a resultit restson a relativelyweaklegalfoundation. Empowermentqualified: Empowerment can therefore be qualified in different ways: it is not necessarilythe result of a one-off act with unequivocal causesand corurequences. Ask: 'Powerto do what?' (specifying,for example,the particularrights involved). r

And perhapsmoreimportantly,'Powerto whom?' Theseare the essential detailsof empowerment.

Experimentingwith village institutions: r

REWMP establishedVillage Wildlife Committees(VWCs) which became projectisedandunaccountable to the restofvillage government.

o MBOMIPA reformed these as Village Natural ResourceCommittees (VNRCs), sub-committeesof village governmentwith a technical and advisoryrole in runningthe wildlife 'business'. Profits of the enterprise belongto the village asa wholeandareinvestedin village developmentfor benefitof all villagers. o Trainingprovidedto both \rNRC and othervillage governmertmembers. But still there is political imbalance,given initial V|{RC control of the proceedsof wildlife utilisation. r

Thereis also a lot of changein village institutionsbecauseof chargesand allegationsaboutthe misuseofNR, morehighly valuedandpoliticisedthan before. Is this 'good governance'developing?

Shouldwe villagiseNR management? o MBOMIPA experiencealsosupportsProf Shivji's observationthat Village Assembliesare relatively weak vs. Village Councils. It is difficult to ensureaffendanceandparticipationof minority and disadvantaged groups. o This is a problemwhich needsto be tackledbut how easyis it? Will there be anywildlife left if we wait for democratisation at villagelevel?

o There are some obvious problemswith the 'villagisation' of NR and especiallywildlife management. e Theseincludethe limited capacityof village governmentsin terms of the personnelandskills availablein smallandremotecommunities... o AIso the potentialfor conflict betweenvillagesover accessto and the use of CPRsin the absenceof well draftedandproperlyenforcedagreements. CBOs,a r adicalalternative? o The Wildlife Policy and resultingdraft WMA GuidelinesstipulateWMA managementby CBOs which are gazettedas Authorised Associations (AAs) The MBOMIPA CBO is on the verge of being registered,the first of a seriesof stepstowards becomingan AA (once new regulationsare in force). It is anticipatedthat the wMA itself will be ceded from the lands of participatingvillages:in turn the CBo (andfuture AA) will be expectedto representand servethe interestsof its constituentvillages,a relationship enshrinedin its constitution. There is potential here for more radical empowermentwith full legal backing. There may also be potential for new resourceconflicts, e.g. between villagesandthe CBO/AA.

3.2

Significent benefitsof different kinds

Unpickingandcontextualising: o The role of economic incentives and other benefits in establishing CBC/CBNRMis frequentlymentioned. r

As with empowerment, we needto understand the role of differentkinds of benefits,and identifu who getswhat andhow andwhen.

What arethe significantbenefitsprovidedto MBOMIPA villagers? r

One way of looking at this questionis to think of it as an enterprise(or seriesof linkedvillageenterprises).

e Our traditional focus has been on the benefitsprovided directly as the principaloutputof the enterprise,i.e. the use of profits to improvevillage services(especiallyhealthandeducation)andinfrastructure.Suchservices etc. are in theory available to all villagers, including minority and marginalisedgroups. Their developmentalsoreducesthe pressureon local households to payextralevies. r

We can alsoidentify othergroupsof beneficiariesassociated with different aspectsofthe operationofthe enterprise(s).

e Theseinclude the Village GameScouts(VGS) recruitedby the VlrlRCs, who maybenefitboth financiallyandin termsof the trainingthey receive. .

They also includethe managersof the enterprise(s), especially(at present) VNRC offrcialsand members,and othervillage governmentmemberswho havebeentrainedby the project.

r

Women managerscite a specific set of benefitsfor women as a group. Theycontrastthe historicalsituationin which womendid not hunt andonly benefitedvery indirectly from the consumptionof game meat, with the presentin which they can play a role as managersof wildlife and can all benefitfrom improvedhealthandeducationservicesin their villages.

r

Meanwhile,surveysshow that animalpopulationsin the project areaare generallystableand in somecasesincreasing.This suggestthat wildlife as an assetis being maintainedand perhapsenhanced.Surprisinglyto some observers,somevillagersdo explicitly value animalsasNR assets,and say thatthis offsetsanycrop andotherdamagethat theymay cause.

Relatedobservations: This list is not meantto be exhaustive,but it shouldgive someidea of the rangeof benefitsstemmingfrom presentactivities. Thereis clearly scope to be innovativein describingand attemptingto understandthesefurther. We needmorecarefulanalysesof both winnersandlosers. How can we weigh the relative importanceof different benefits (and negativeimpactstoo)? Is there any minimum bundleof benefitswhich will sustainthe process? E.g.benefitsjust for oneparticulargroupof actors?

3.3

External political and economicsupport

Addinga third key ingredient:

6

r

Externalpolitical and economicsupportis anotherkey ingredient,which can be related back to empowerment. Indeed the case study of empowermentillustrateswell the involvementof externalactors in both helping to initiate and support village activities (e.g. the project, the Wildlife Division).

The needfor support: r

Becauseof the severeconflictswhich the processgeneratedinitially, it is clear that CWM in Idodi and Pawagawould never had got gotng without strongsupportfrom the outside.

o The inherent weaknessof villages (their capacity and organisation), especiallyin such a marginal and undevelopedarea,also meansthat external alliances are required to help develop community wildlife management. e An inter-villageCBO may havemuchgreatercapacitythan a singlevillage in this regard. Nonetheless,it is diffrcult to seehow the current (draft) processfor establishinga CBO/AA and WMA can work without external inputs. Potentialallies: o Local government(districts)and regionalinstitutions(including National Parks like Ruaha)have a limited capacityto provide all of the kinds of supportrequired. Donorfundedprojectsareneverlikely to supportmorethana few WMAs. The greatestpotentialperhapslies in the private and voluntary sectors (recognisingthat one major pushto developthe new Wildlife Policy and draft Guidelineswasfrom the privatesector). Would privatesectorinvolvementreallybe like sleepingwith the enemy? Thereis evidentlyscopefor combiningdifferent kinds of support,though managingmultiple alliances may pull CBOs and their enterprisesin conflicting directions.

Conclusions Why' cor4munity-owned naturalresource-based enterprises' ? First,'community-owned' :

r

'Community' is a very loose term, but this can be useful, allowing its applicationto different levels of organisation,e.g. village, inter-village

(cBo).

o It also servesas a useful reminderof the heterogenous (multi-ethnicetc.) natureof many(for want of a betterword) communities. o

'Community-based', however,is too vague.

o The plrase 'community-owned'puts the spotlight back on issues of empowerrnent andthe ownershipof NR andwildlife-basedinstitutionsand enterprises. Second,'NR-based enterprises' : o Our traditional formulationsemphasiseconservationand/or management (anduse)ofNR. o But why not shift the emphasisfromwhst is being managed(e.g.CPR),to how andbywhom? o Think about ownership of the enterpriserather than (or as well as) ownershipof the resource. o NR managementis just one part of the managementof an NR-based enterprise. Theoreticalandpracticalconsequences: o In practical terms, an enterpriseapproachhelps us to understandwhy relativelyfew community-owned businesses succeedandmanyothersfail. .

It provideswith us with a way to structureour assistance to communityowned institutions of this kind and guidelines on how to improve performanceas well as conceiveof their relationswith private and other enterprises.

e Thereis alreadyan extensiveliteratureand guidelineson how to establish and operate enterprisesin Africa, including collective enterprisesof differentkinds. This provides a link back to earlier researchon collective village enterprisesin Tanzaniaduringthe period of ujamaaand relatedstudiesof the reasonsbehind the successand failure of women's and other group enterprises in Kenya. In the latter caseresearchled directly into the design of a businessplanningprogrcmmeand there are ample opportunitiesto applya similarapproachto collectiveNR andwildlife enterprises. An enterpriseapproachmight alsoproducegeneralinsightslinking with the more fruitful aspects of other recent developmentagendasand the

approaches stemmingfrom them. NR, for example,might be conceivedas the assetsof the enterprise,whetherthey are owned or subjectto other kindsof rights,like rightsof accessanduse. This example again highlights the importanceof ownershipand other categoriesof rights (including rights of use), the potential fragility of 'lesser'rights,andthe need to defineanddevelopthesefurther. ConceivingNR asassetsof differentkindsalsomakesit easierto link with some of the more productive insights of a 'sustainablelivelihoods' approach,thinking hereof both individual/household assetsand collective assets,andthe natureof the relationbetweenthe two. o Suchan approachmight alsoassistin the putting questionsof the value of NR and wildlife assetshigher on the agendaof economistsand policy makers:thesevaluesareoftenpoorlyappreciated, o Of late the debateaboutthe performanceof CBC and CBNRM seemsto have got stuclg at least in part, on the questionof community-based approaches vs. traditionalPA approaches. o Despitethe practicaldiffrcultiesinvolved,I am not convincedthat we have exhaustedall the possibilitiesand promisesraisedby differentapproaches to communityownership,if only we can bring ourselvesto tackle the problemsinvolvedfrom new angles. o I also think that thereare more opportunitiesfor experimentation in CPR management, andespeciallyin the wildlife sectorin Tanzania,thanthe few identifiedby Prof Shivji, .

Only time, as they say,will tell; and this shouldspur us on to treat these matterswith greaterurgency.If we don't, thenit's quitepossiblethat we'll be left with a muchdiminishedresourcebaseto manage,to the detrimentof everyonewho might otherwisebenefit from the communityownershipof NR-basedenterprises.

Thankvou.