Convergence or Convenience? International Conservation NGOs and Development Assistance in Tanzania

Convergence or Convenience?

International Conservation NGOs and

Development Assistance in Tanzania

ARIELLE LEVINE *

University of California, Berkeley, USA

Summary. — International conservation NGOs and development agencies have historicallyoperated independently of one another. Recently, their agendas have converged to consider bothenvironmental and human needs, with an emerging focus on private sector involvement in con-servation. New funding from international finance institutions has become available for NGO ini-tiatives, and today there is little difference between the environmental strategies of internationaldevelopment agencies and those of the major conservation NGOs operating in Tanzania. While thisis due in part to independent shifts in both sectors, NGOs may also be serving to carry out andlegitimate the neoliberal policies of development institutions. � 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. Allrights reserved.

Key words — Africa, Tanzania, communities, conservation, international development aid, NGOs

1. INTRODUCTION

With over 25% of its land surface set aside innational parks and protected areas (Leader-Williams, Kayera, & Overton, 1996a) and alargely rural population, Tanzania’s conserva-tion policies have a significant human impact.Most of these conservation programs are cur-rently managed and funded by foreign agencies,largely international nongovernmental organi-zations (NGOs), working in conjunction withinternational development agencies and theTanzanian state. ‘‘Community-based conserva-tion’’ has recently become a primary focus forthe majority of these programs, and today thereare few, if any, conservation areas in Tanzaniathat do not have a ‘‘community-based’’ com-ponent sponsored by an associated donoragency.While NGOs (in some form or another) have

been involved in conservation in Tanzania sincecolonial times, they have not always played thesame role, had the same focus, or been asprolific and well-funded as they are today. Thecurrent NGO boom in Tanzania correspondswith a proliferation of NGOs around theworld, due in large part to the recent focus byinternational development institutions (in re-sponse to a variety of critiques) on involving

‘‘civil society’’ in development programs. NGOsare often viewed, albeit simplistically, viewed asinstitutional representatives of civil society, andthus development agencies are increasinglychanneling funds through NGOs as an efficientand cost-effective method of ‘‘partnering’’ withcivil society (see Gibbon, 1995).This substantial new source of funding has

resulted in a tremendous growth in the NGOsector and an expansion of NGO programsaround the world. In 1999, the number ofNGOs listed in the Yearbook of InternationalOrganizations was nearly 44,000, up from 6,000in 1990 (Union of International Associations,1999), and as a group these institutions delivermore aid than the entire United Nations sys-tem. Tanzania follows this international trend.During 1986–90, there were only 25 registeredNGOs in Tanzania. In the early 1990s, thisnumber increased to 604, and recent assess-ments of the NGO sector estimate that thecurrent number of organizations is more than1,800 if nonregistered organizations are in-cluded (Mercer, 1999).Simultaneous with this growth in NGOs and

NGO programs has been a shift in their focus.

World Development Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1043–1055, 2002� 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0305-750X/02/$ - see front matter

PII: S0305-750X(02)00022-0www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

* Final revision accepted: 31 January 2002.

1043

Within parks and protected areas in Tanzania,this has meant a change in conservation poli-cies. Most early conservation programs focusedon setting aside land as protected areas, as wellas keeping out poachers and trespassers (Neu-mann, 1992, 1998; Anderson & Grove, 1987)with little attention paid to economic or so-cial development. Now NGOs are partner-ing with international development agenciesto implement ‘‘integrated conservation-devel-opment projects,’’ working to involve localresidents in conservation initiatives, and help-ing local people to derive profit from wild-life (see Brandon & Wells, 1992; Murphree,1993; Gibson & Marks, 1995; Leader-Williams,Kayera, & Overton, 1996b; ACC, 1999; New-mark & Hough, 2000).Although many optimistically herald this

new role of NGOs as an impetus for localempowerment or a sign of global civil society(see Wapner, 1996; Keck & Sikkink, 1998),others question just how much these institu-tions are helping local people, arguing that theinvolvement of NGOs is simply a new mecha-nism for the reproduction of inequality (Mer-cer, 1999) or external control (Edwards &Hulme, 1996). This leads to a number of im-portant questions about the role of NGOs,both in Tanzania and in developing countries.Does this new emphasis on NGO involvementtruly mean a strengthening of civil society? AreNGOs simply filling in for the provision ofservices (social and otherwise) that can nolonger be provided by the state in the context ofneoliberal structural adjustment policies? HaveNGOs been co-opted by international financeinstitutions, serving merely as middlemen tocarry out the development agenda of theseagencies?In any case, international NGOs have become

major players on the conservation and devel-opment stage in Tanzania and internationally.They are pivotal in shaping the conservationagenda of developing countries around theworld, particularly in the context of ‘‘commu-nity-based conservation.’’ In order to betterunderstand the current role of NGOs in theconservation of parks and protected areas,particularly in relationship to international de-velopment agencies, it is necessary to situatethese institutions in a regional, historical, andpolitical context, framed in the light of inter-national development policy.In the course of this article, I outline the

shifting roles of both conservation and devel-opment agencies in Tanzania since colonial

times. First, I lay out a brief history of envi-ronmental conservation and development pro-grams in Tanzania and the parallels betweenthem. I then show how these two agendasgradually merged in the 1980s and 1990s,with international conservation NGOs at thefocal point. This convergence came about, inpart, through independent factors operatingwithin both the conservation and develop-ment communities, including local resistanceto exclusionary conservation processes, the ac-knowledgement of the need to integrate envi-ronmental concerns with development policies,and a greater societal dialogue about the needfor increased local participation in both devel-opment and conservation. However, many ofthe new conservation policies that emergedwere a direct result of the new emphasis bydevelopment institutions on the importance ofNGO involvement as an alternative to the state,and the consequent injection of substantialdevelopment funding into NGO programs. Asmore funding became available for NGO ini-tiatives that coincided with the predominantlyneoliberal development agenda of the time,these types of programs expanded, and therewas a sudden new focus on privatization inconservation, economic reforms, and on‘‘making conservation pay for itself.’’ Today,little difference can be seen between the envi-ronmental strategies of international develop-ment agencies and those of the majorinternational conservation NGOs operating inTanzania.

2. DEVELOPMENT ANDCONSERVATION IN TANZANIA––THE

COLONIAL PERIOD

Conservation and development policy havebeen linked in Tanzania since colonial times.Correspondingly, the actions of internationalconservation agencies and NGOs have fol-lowed many of the general trends within devel-opment. While Tanzania 1 was under colonialcontrol, conservation policies were designatedin a top-down manner by the British colonialgovernment, and British policies consistedgenerally of partitioning the land betweenwildlife reserves (where human use was re-stricted) and land to be used for agriculturalproduction.On land designated for agriculture, the

British aggressively imposed measures to get

WORLD DEVELOPMENT1044

Tanzanian farmers to modernize farming tech-niques and undertake soil conservation pro-grams in order to promote export agriculture,which was a major focus of Tanzania’s colonialeconomy. While many of these measures wereactually agriculturally inefficient, and in somecases environmentally destructive, the colonialgovernment accused farmers who refused toaccept these ‘‘modern methods’’ of being stub-born, lazy, and ignorant, with little recognitionof the ecological logic that lay behind their re-sistance (Coulson, 1982). The British viewedtheir Western technical expertise as superior totraditional practices, and mandated that theiragricultural development programs be adoptedfor rural improvement.Similarly, European notions of conservation

were used in the designation of game reservesand national parks. Rather than viewing theAfrican landscape as a dynamic and changingenvironment in which people lived, colonialconservation thinking sustained the idea thatnature must be preserved in a ‘‘wild and natu-ral’’ state, free from industrialized developmentand human habitation (Anderson & Grove,1987). Although most early conservationistswere also hunters, when wildlife populationsbegan to decline sharply in the African colonies,this romanticized notion shifted from preserv-ing landscapes for hunting to strict wildlifepreservation. In 1933, the Convention for theProtection of the Flora and Fauna of Africa washeld in London, resulting in an internationalagreement obligating all signatories, includingTanzania, to investigate the establishment of asystem of national parks.At the forefront of the conservation move-

ment in the British colonies was the Society forthe Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire(SPFE), a politically powerful conservationsociety in England. Although not technicallyreferred to as an ‘‘NGO’’ at the time, the SPFEfilled the same nongovernmental advocacy roleoccupied by NGOs today. In its mandate toconserve wildlife, the SPFE appealed to ahigher moral cause, claiming that England had‘‘a responsibility in what it may do or leaveundone, to the educated opinion of the civilizedworld’’ (quoted in Neumann, 1992). The Soci-ety believed it was England’s duty, as a more‘‘civilized’’ and educated nation, to protect a‘‘natural’’ Africa. 2

Serengeti was set aside as the first nationalpark in British colonial Africa in 1937. Al-though human use was not initially prohibitedin Serengeti, the SPFE made it clear that the

presence of humans was not welcome and ad-vocated strongly to limit human activitieswithin parks. These restrictions caused confu-sion and resentment among local residents,such as the pastoral Maasai, who were first toldto plant crops as part of development pro-grams, then fined for doing so in protected ar-eas such as Serengeti (Neumann, 1995). In spiteof the pressure from London, colonial officersresisted the establishment of additional parks,fearing that the SPFE’s exclusionary strategieswould create conflict and threaten the stabilityof the colony. In the 1950s, leaders of theemerging nationalist movement (TANU) usedan anti-conservationist platform in rural areasto solicit support in opposition to colonial rule.After considerable debate between the colonialadministration in Dar Es Salaam, conservationorganizations, and colonial powers in London,people were officially prohibited from livinginside Serengeti and all future park boundariesin 1959, setting the template for conservationprograms to come.

3. POST-COLONIAL TANZANIA

(a) Conservation policies

While Europe no longer exerts direct politicalcontrol over Africa, European notions of theAfrican environment continue to influence con-servation policies. The Tanzanian government’sprograms toward conservation bear strikingsimilarities to those of the colonial period.After gaining independence in 1961, the TANUleadership rapidly reversed its previous stanceagainst wildlife conservation and enthusias-tically supported the creation of parks andprotected areas. If anything, the new govern-ment was even more active than the colonialregime in conservation; today, the governmentof Tanzania maintains 12 national parks, 23game reserves, 43 game controlled areas, theNgorongoro Conservation Area, and 520 forestreserves in the name of national resource con-servation (Leader-Williams et al., 1996b).This surprising change in TANU’s atti-

tude was not due to the party’s sudden con-version to a new environmental ethic, nor wasTanzania’s first president, Julius Nyerere, anardent conservationist. The shift does makesense, however, when viewed in the context ofinternational development policy. Julius Nye-rere came into the presidency with an ambitious

CONVERGENCE OR CONVENIENCE? 1045

populist vision of socialist development forhis people. His development program, called‘‘ujamaa,’’ 3 emphasized independence and self-reliance, with strong social service provisionand rural development from the ground-up(Nyerere, 1967; Kitching, 1982). The Tanzaniangovernment at independence had however in-herited an impoverished country, an export-oriented economy, little internal infrastructure,and low levels of literacy and education (Hav-nevik, 1993). It had virtually no way to inde-pendently fund or support these ambitioussocial programs. Wildlife, with its potential tobring in a large new source of foreign currencythrough tourism, suddenly became a nationalpriority.After decolonization, the International

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN,now World Conservation Union, an interna-tional consortium of governments, NGOs, andaffiliates) took on the task of assisting newlyindependent countries in planning and manag-ing their own parks and conservation pro-grams. In an IUCN sponsored symposium heldin Tanzania in 1961, Nyerere gave a speechopening a new era of conservation:

In accepting the trusteeship of our wildlife we sol-emnly declare that we will do everything in our powerto make sure that our children’s grandchildren will beable to enjoy this rich and precious inheritance. . . Theconservation of wildlife and wild places calls for spe-cialist knowledge, trained manpower, and moneyand we look to other nations to cooperate in this im-portant task (quoted in Watterson, 1961).

Thus, the new government promised to granthigh priority to wildlife conservation and tocontinue the efforts begun in colonial times,calling specifically on outside agencies to aid inthis task. International conservationists oftencite this call as a positive example of Africangovernment interest and cooperation in pro-tecting wildlife. It is usually not mentionedhowever that this portion of Nyerere’s speechwas in fact written for him by members ofWestern conservation organizations (Bonner,1993).International conservation organizations

worked to ensure the continued preservation ofwildlife and national parks in Tanzania in avariety of ways. Mass education campaignswere designed to teach African nationals aboutthe value of wildlife and instill pride in theirnatural heritage. The African Wildlife Leader-ship Foundation (AWLF, now African WildlifeFoundation) was established at this time to

address the training needs of African conser-vation professionals. In 1963, AWLF createdthe College of African Wildlife Management(CAWM) in Mweka, Tanzania to train wildlifemanagers for all of the former British colo-nies. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) joinedAWLF in funding CAWMprograms and schol-arships in 1968, and the IUCN and otheragencies continue to be involved. The transitionto African wildlife management in the Tanza-nian government was made through an almostcomplete reliance on CAWM, and thus a reli-ance on the international conservation organi-zations that continue to fund it.

(b) International donor assistance

Tanzania’s dependence on international do-nors in its conservation efforts closely parallelsits economic relationship with internationaldevelopment agencies. In spite of his emphasison independence and self-reliance in Tanzania’sdevelopment, 4 Nyerere solicited a good deal ofdevelopment advice and financial assistancefrom international financial institutions. Thecountry’s first few development models wereformulated by the World Bank (Campbell &Stein, 1991). Nordic countries, sympathetic tothe idea of a socialist alternative to capitalismand communism, were generous donors to theemerging Tanzanian state, and a number ofother international finance missions helped toformulate future development plans (Campbell& Stein, 1991; Shivji, 1991).By the late 1960s, international finance

institutions were beginning to place a highemphasis on ‘‘human capital,’’ health, andeducation as indicators of development (Wol-fensohn, 1999). Other priorities included theprovision of ‘‘basic needs’’ and strengtheningthe informal sectors (Seers, 1969; ILO, 1972).Nyerere’s rurally focused, state-driven, hu-manitarian vision of development fit in wellwith this agenda, and international donor aidto Tanzania increased each year. During 1969–74, the number of health centers in Tanzaniatripled, and by 1978, 97% of all primary agedchildren were enrolled in school (Kitching,1982). There was an increase in the supply ofclean water to rural villages, as well as a suc-cessful adult literacy campaign. Tanzania’s ex-tensive social service programs were fundedalmost entirely by outside assistance, as theinternal economy of the country could notprovide the resources to furnish these programs(Kiondo, 1991).


International donor agencies played a verydirect role in implementing these developmentpolicies. In the early 1970s, Tanzania was di-vided into 20 regions, and each region’s devel-opment program was sponsored by a differentdonor country. For example, the Japanese tookfunding responsibility for Kilimanjaro, Canadafor Dar Es Salaam, West Germany for Tanga,Sweden for the Coast, and Norway for Rukwa(Shivji, 1991). Similarly, conservation in Tan-zania has been (and still is) predominantlyfunded and managed by external NGOs andaid agencies who have divided up responsibilityfor the country’s parks and protected areas.GTZ (the German development agency) worksin Selous Game Reserve, and WWF also worksin Selous, Ruaha, Udzungwa, Mafia Island,and other areas. AWF (the African WildlifeFoundation) works in Arusha, Serengeti, Tar-angire and Lake Manyara National Parks.CARE International also has conservationprograms in the Jozani and Ngezi Forest Pre-serves and Eastern Arc Forests.Although Nyerere’s social policies were pro-

gressive and innovative, Tanzania’s economicpolicies continued colonial models in much thesame way that the country’s conservation pol-icies had. The economic development modelprescribed by the World Bank was not verydifferent than that prescribed for other Africancolonies. Tanzania’s economy remained export-oriented, producing what it did not consume,and consuming what it could not produce(Babu, 1991). In spite of Nyerere’s officialrhetoric of self-reliance, initial economic de-velopment policies emphasized the expansionof export agriculture, import substitution in-dustrialization (with a high dependency onimported inputs), and encouragement of for-eign investment. Foreign development fundingallowed the state to expand tremendouslythroughout the 1960s and particularly 1970s,well beyond its capacity to sustain its ownprograms.

(c) Wildlife tourism

The post-colonial Tanzanian governmentencouraged the growth of wildlife tourism,viewing it in much the same way as any other‘‘export’’ industry (Loyacono, 1993; McLeod,1999). A Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA)memo from 1970 on the development of thetourist industry explicitly stated that the pur-pose of parks ‘‘is the earning of foreign ex-change in the same way that one looks upon the

exports of coffee, sisal, cotton, tea or dia-monds’’ (quoted in Neumann, 1998). The ex-pansion of national parks and game reserveswas seen as an additional means of encouragingeconomic growth. The country’s developmentplans projected that tourism would provide thesecond largest source of foreign exchange.Nyerere himself summed up the country’s viewof wildlife conservation:

I personally am not interested in animals. I do notwant to spend my holidays watching crocodiles. Nev-ertheless, I am entirely in favor of their survival. I be-lieve that after diamonds and sisal, wild animals willprovide Tanganyika with its greatest source of in-come. Thousands of Americans and Europeans havethe strange urge to see these animals (quoted in Nash,1982, p. 342).

Like other export industries established dur-ing Tanzania’s period of import substitution,tourism is highly dependent on foreign importsand outside companies. The infrastructure,luxury goods, and facilities required for upscaletourism are largely unavailable in Tanzania,and must be purchased from abroad. In addi-tion, the money and expertise required to es-tablish tourist operations lies almost entirely inforeign corporations. Just as the country reliedon international development institutions forfunding and advice for its other export indus-tries, Tanzania turned to international conser-vation NGOs to provide funding, technicaladvice, and management expertise for the es-tablishment of new parks and protected areasto draw tourism.During the 1960s, safari hunting was the

predominant form of wildlife tourism, and theTanzanian government sold permits to privatecompanies to hunt in reserves or game-con-trolled areas for various lengths of time. But,because of falling wildlife numbers from poach-ing, as well as exploitation of the licensingsystem by foreign concessionaires, the statetook control of the tourism industry and closedtourist hunting completely in 1973 (Leader-Williams et al., 1996a). The Tanzanian govern-ment invested heavily in new tourist facilities,and the annual visitation to national parks in-creased 11.1% per year over 1969–76, but thecountry received very little actual tourist reve-nue. Serengeti and Kilimanjaro were majortourist destinations, but most outfits were ar-ranged and paid for in Nairobi (which hadbetter tourist marketing and infrastructure)before they ever entered Tanzania (Neumann,1998). Tanzania’s substantial wildlife tourism


industry, though tightly controlled by the state,was completely dependent on outside donorsubsidies for its survival.The government re-opened tourist hunting

again in 1978, but regulation of poaching wasdifficult to enforce as funding was low andthere was no international ban on the trade ofivory. Elephant and rhinoceros numbers felldramatically throughout the 1970s and 1980s,and a number of international conservationNGOs began to offer assistance in the form ofanti-poaching programs. In 1980, the tourismindustry opened up again to foreign investmentand began to sell hunting concessions to privatecompanies. Since then, increasing numbers ofprivate sector operators have become involvedin hunting in Tanzania, and the industry, alongwith the revenue earned from national parks,has grown considerably.

4. ECONOMIC CRISIS ANDSTRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT

The Tanzanian government’s sudden legal-ization of tourist hunting and re-opening toforeign investment was due primarily to mount-ing pressures caused by an economic crisis inthe late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1978, theprice of oil doubled, and Tanzania commenceda war with Uganda. This resulted in a severedeficit of payments and a decrease in trans-portation services. In the first few years ofthe 1980s Tanzania also underwent a periodof drought, causing a decrease in agriculturalproduction and increased reliance on food im-ports. The country had also probably reachedthe limits of agricultural expansion based onthe simple technology available, and ruralfarmers were beginning to rebel by refusing toproduce crops for export, converting exportcropland to subsistence production and causinga shortage of goods for international exchange(Shivji, 1991).With this decrease in cash flow and mounting

debt, Tanzania turned to whatever sources offunding it could find, and opening up tourismwas one of the most viable options. Tanzaniaalso turned to the World Bank and Interna-tional Monetary Fund (IMF) for increased aid.These institutions, now fully entrenched inneoliberal ideology, attributed Tanzania’s eco-nomic problems to its socialist policies andgargantuan state sector. In 1981, the IMF re-quired that the country implement a structuraladjustment program as a condition of future

aid. Because the prescribed cutbacks in thestate sector and in social service provision wentagainst Nyerere’s socialist ideals, he refused totake on a structural adjustment program, andthe IMF officially broke relations with theTanzanian government. With a new emphasison international aid coordination, the WorldBank and Nordic aid agencies, who had pre-viously been more sympathetic to Tanzania’ssocialist policies, also refused to grant fundingto the country until it agreed to implement IMFreforms (Campbell & Stein, 1991).With its funding for subsidized social

programs cut out from underneath it, livingstandards in Tanzania declined substantially.Under increasing internal and external pres-sure, the Tanzanian government had littlechoice but to begin to implement its own eco-nomic reforms during 1981–85, measures whichwere essentially the same as those mandated bythe IMF. Rural residents were now required topay for their education, water, health andmedical care. Foreign investment was encour-aged, and foreign companies were allowed tocontrol business and tourist operations withinthe country. But, the state still clung to theofficial doctrine of self-reliance and socialism,even though the economic and social realitieswere much different (Campbell & Stein, 1991).At this time of economic austerity, the Tan-

zanian government lacked sufficient funding tomanage and patrol its extensive system of parksand protected areas, and during the 1980s theelephant population declined by 80% (Leader-Williams et al., 1996a). Increasingly, the gov-ernment turned to foreign NGOs to help financethese programs. In 1981, when most sourcesof foreign assistance to Tanzania had been cutoff, WWF established a discretionary fund toassist the anti-poaching and general manage-ment activities of TANAPA, providing a crucialsource of income for the country. In 1989,WWF broadened the fund to include the Wild-life and Forestry divisions of the government aswell.In 1985, Julius Nyerere stepped down from

the presidency and was succeeded by Ali Has-san Mwinyi. The following year, Tanzaniaagreed to implement the official IMF-designedstructural adjustment program. Although thesereforms were still publicly opposed by Nyerere,Mwinyi used the liberalized economic policiesimplemented during 1981–85 to legitimize theIMF agreement as an extension of TANU’sown policies toward liberalization (Stein, 1991).Since the 1986 IMF agreement, Tanzania has


undergone additional neoliberal structural ad-justment programs, all of which have beenpredominantly oriented toward currency de-valuation, economic liberalization, encouragingforeign investment, and a reduced role for thestate.The decline in social service provision that

came about as a consequence of structural ad-justment, combined with extensive periods ofdrought during the 1980s, put tremendouspressures on rural populations (Gibbon, 1995).Around parks and protected areas, where localpeople were forcibly excluded from land use,rural survival strategies were squeezed evenfurther. Resistance to these exclusionary poli-cies mounted, and incidences of illegal tres-passing, grazing, and poaching in protectedareas occurred frequently (Leader-Williamset al., 1996b). The response by conservationistswas initially to tighten restrictions on access toland. For instance, in the Ngorongoro Con-servation Area (a limited use zone in whichMaasai pastoralists were technically allowed tolive), cultivation was banned during 1975–92,resulting in severe undernourishment of manyMaasai children (Taylor & Johansson, 1996).The conflicts with local residents, decline inwildlife numbers, and human tragedy that oc-curred during the mid-1980s resulted in a re-consideration of many of the restrictive policiessurrounding parks and protected areas (An-derson & Grove, 1987). By the end of the 1980s,conservation organizations were beginning topay attention to the importance of the socialcontext of natural resource management, re-sulting in the formulation of new types ofprograms which involved local communities inconservation activities.

5. CONSERVATION ANDDEVELOPMENT MERGE

While there were many parallels between thefunding patterns of international developmentagencies and international conservation orga-nizations in Tanzania, up to this time the twoinstitutions had generally operated indepen-dently of one another. International aid policyfocused broadly on economic development.Initially, it emphasized import substitution in-dustrialization for economic growth. By the1970s, the focus of international developmentagencies turned to emphasizing ‘‘basic needs,’’strengthening the informal sector and the ruraleconomy, and providing social services such as

health and education. In the 1980s, develop-ment policy shifted toward neoliberal structuraladjustment programs oriented around usingmarket mechanisms such as currency devalua-tion, trade liberalization, elimination of subsi-dies, privatization and reducing the role of thestate. International conservation organizations,on the other had, were initially oriented towardsetting aside areas such as parks and preserves,training Tanzanians in traditional Westernwildlife management practices, and educatingAfricans about the importance of preservingwildlife and the environment. In the 1970s andearly 1980s, this focus expanded to include as-sisting with state programs to control poachingand enforce protected areas boundaries.In the mid-1980s, development and conser-

vation agendas began to come together. Withthe publication of the Bruntland Report of theWorld Commission on Environment and De-velopment in 1987, there emerged a new inter-national consensus on the need for ‘‘sustainabledevelopment.’’ The UN General Assemblyissued a resolution stating ‘‘environmentalissues are closely intertwined with developmentpolicies and practices; consequently, environ-mental goals and actions need to be defined inrelation to development objectives and policies’’(UN, 1987). This new mandate to incorporateenvironmental goals into development pro-grams coincided with rising criticism fromNGOs of the environmental and human effectsof many destructive World Bank programs suchas Polonoreste in the Brazilian Amazon and theNarmada dam in India (Wade, 1997).In 1987, the World Bank underwent a reor-

ganization, hiring additional environmentalportfolio managers, approving new regulationsconcerning environmental assessments, andbeginning a portfolio of environmental projects(Wade, 1997; FIVAS, 2000). During 1985–90,bank funding for ‘‘environmental’’ loans in-creased by a factor of 12, from $15 to $180million, and by 1995 reached $990 million(Wade, 1997). The Global Environment Facility(GEF) was founded in 1991 as a joint programof the World Bank, UN Environmental Pro-gramme, and UN Development Programme,and since that time it has provided over $775million for nearly 250 projects focused on‘‘biodiverstiy’’ (GEF, 2000).Coincident with this new environmental

focus was an increasing emphasis on the im-portance of local participation and the in-volvement of ‘‘civil society’’ in developmentprojects. In Sustainability and the Wealth of


Nations, Ismail Serageldin (1996), Vice Presi-dent for Environmentally Sustainable Devel-opment of the World Bank, emphasized theimportance of considering not only economicand ecological factors, but also social factorssuch as equity, participation, and empower-ment in development. Today the World Bankhas an entire program devoted to working withcivil society, stating that ‘‘in all its forms, civilsociety is probably the largest single factor indevelopment, if not in its monetary contribu-tion, then certainly in its human contributionand its experience and its history’’ (Wolfen-sohn, 1999).The emphasis on conservation, participation,

and working with civil society by developmentinstitutions paralleled a reconsideration of ex-clusionary conservation methods going on ininternational conservation agencies, ushering ina new era of ‘‘community-based conservation.’’Today, community-based programs are beingadopted universally by organizations rangingfrom multilateral and bilateral lending institu-tions to environmental NGOs (Brosius, Tsing,& Zerner, 1998). These programs operate underthe premise that local populations can moreeffectively manage their resources through localor traditional knowledge and forms of accessthan can the state or distant corporate man-agers (Stevens, 1997). Development and con-servation agencies now call ‘‘to bolster theability of local communities to play a lead rolein their own development’’ (USAID, 1997),believing that ‘‘rural people. . . have a stake inconserving wildlife and habitats’’ (AWF, 1999).

6. A NEW FOCUS ON NGOS

This merging of conservation goals cameabout at the same time that the World Bankwas seriously considering the role of NGOs asalternative recipients to development aid. Thedevelopment world saw NGOs as efficient in-stitutional representatives of ‘‘civil society.’’While this was a rather simplified notion of thecomplex nature of civil society, it did changethe way international aid was administered,and development institutions now had a newalternative to funding what they viewed asbloated state structures. Before 1989, NGOswere involved in about 15 World Bank-fundedprojects per year, or approximately 6% of totalprojects (Hoy, 1998; World Bank, 2000b). In1989, this increased to 20%, and during 1994–97, NGO involvement in Bank programs was

between 40 and 50%. In the environmentalsector, this involvement was even greater.NGOs were directly involved in approximately67% of the World Bank’s environmental pro-grams in 1990, and by 1997, 100% of theseprojects involved NGO participation (WorldBank, 2000b).The international development community

viewed NGOs as ideal instruments to imple-ment community-based natural resource man-agement programs and began to channel largeamounts of funding through these organiza-tions. The World Bank estimates that it dis-tributed over $7.6 billion of aid to developingcountries through international NGOs in 1992alone (World Bank, 2000a). This new source offunding for NGOs has exerted considerableinfluence over Tanzania’s environmental pro-grams. Through the 1980s and 1990s, conser-vation NGOs expanded their programs andshifted from a focus on strict conservation andmanagement activities through assisting gov-ernment agencies to an increasing focus on lo-cal participation.WWF’s programs in Tanzania exemplify this

shift. Although the organization’s discretionaryfund for Tanzania was initially directed towardassisting the Tanzanian government’s anti-poaching and general management activities,the fund was expanded and amended in 1992 toinclude ‘‘local conservation, non-governmentalorganizations, [and] women and youth groups’’(WWF, 2000a), closely paralleling the prioritiesof the international development communityregarding the involvement of ‘‘civil society.’’ Inthe 1996–97 fiscal year, WWF’s programspending in Tanzania alone totaled $2.7 million(WWF, 2000a). WWF currently has programsin a number Tanzania’s parks and protectedareas, nearly all of which involve a community-based component. For instance, in the MafiaIsland Marine Park, WWF works to improve‘‘management practices and decision makinglinks,’’ ‘‘strengthen participation of the Mafiacommunity,’’ provide support to local schools,and assists a women’s weaving cooperative(WWF, 2000c). WWF also helps to fund theCommunity Conservation Service (CCS), aprogram begun by TANAPA and AWF in1987 to integrate local communities into parkmanagement systems (WWF, 1998).WWF is the largest international conserva-

tion NGO operating in Tanzania today. Theorganization has partnered with the WorldBank on a number of projects over the pastdecade, and in 1998 the Bank and WWF en-


tered a new alliance for forest conservation andsustainable use. In the words of Bank PresidentJames Wolfensohn and WWFDirector GeneralClaude Martin:

Two very different organizations with apparently dif-ferent missions came together and discovered theyhad more in common than they had imagined—interms of alleviating poverty and protecting the envi-ronment. We understood that a new strength wouldlie in our combined efforts. . . But this is just the begin-ning. The Alliance’s greatest potential lies in its abilityto leverage reforms and influence ideas and the shapeand financing of new endeavors. . . For the WorldBank or WWF, or any other institution intent on se-curing our future on a livable planet, going it aloneis not an option. As the World Bank and WWF forgea closer relationship, both realize that the Alliance willonly be as strong as the partnerships it forms withother non-governmental organizations, developmentinstitutions, the private sector, and governments(World Bank & WWF, 1999).

Encouraging as this may sound, a questionarises out of this new relationship. Is this reallytwo organizations coming together in a strate-gic alliance with a common goal for conserva-tion? Or is, perhaps, the World Bank providinga new and irresistible source of funding, whileWWF is helping to provide legitimacy to theBank’s predominantly neoliberal policies? Dothese two organizations have more in commonthan they had originally believed, or might themoney involved in this partnership be servingto subtly shift WWF’s conservation agenda?

7. THE ECONOMICS OF CONSERVATION

A new emphasis on privatization and eco-nomic incentives has emerged in a number ofconservation programs in Tanzania, a changethat is especially interesting in light of theabove questions. Although international devel-opment institutions’ priorities have increasinglyfocused on social issues and local participationthroughout the 1990s, their neoliberal finan-cial policies remain virtually unchanged. Struc-tural adjustment reforms continue, and theTanzanian government continues to implementIMF-dictated measures such as privatization,reducing import tariffs and barriers to interna-tional trade, and government retrenchment inreturn for financial assistance (IMF, 2000). TheWorld Bank still emphasizes an increase inforeign exchange with its community-basedprograms, stating that ‘‘community conserva-tion [is] an important aspect of park manage-

ment that. . . may indirectly pay for itselfthrough enhanced use of the protected area bypaying tourists’’ (Kiss, 1990). International con-servation NGOs, too, are incorporating similarthemes. In 1992, Director General of the IUCN,Martin Holdgate, presented a talk to the RoyalSociety of Arts in London entitled ‘‘Can Wild-life Pay for Itself?’’, and conservation organi-zations have been focusing increasingly onwildlife privatization schemes, micro-creditprograms, and macroeconomic reforms forsustainable development.WWF has adopted much of the economic

emphasis of development institutions in itsMacroeconomics for Sustainable DevelopmentProgram Office (MPO). This program, fundedby a consortium of development agencies, wasestablished in 1992 to integrate environmentalissues into macroeconomic reform programs.The MPO seeks to ‘‘implement economic re-forms. . . in Tanzania. . . that integrate eco-nomic, environmental, and social issues andthat will benefit the poorest section of thepopulation,’’ and works with government aidagencies to develop approaches to structuralreform that promote environmental sustain-ability and poverty alleviation (WWF, 2000b).In the early 1990s, WWF issued a report out-lining many of the environmental problems ofcurrent structural adjustment policies in Tan-zania and other countries. While this publica-tion provides a very useful analysis of theenvironmental shortcomings in cost-benefit ac-counting methods used in structural adjust-ment, it does not strongly question or criticizethe fundamental assumptions behind structuraladjustment programs themselves. Rather, itemphasizes the importance of these policies,stressing that ‘‘structural reforms are central toimproving the long-term productivity and sta-bility of many developing countries’’ (WWF,1996).AWF, which receives approximately 40% of

its budget from bilateral and multilateral de-velopment agencies, is another major conser-vation organization in Tanzania which has beenrecently looking into the potential of privatiza-tion programs for wildlife conservation andtourism (Otto, Kamara, & Lissu, 1998). AWFhas established a number of community-basedconservation programs, including the Commu-nity Conservation Service Center (CCSC) andPartnership Options for Resource-use Innova-tion (PORI), which assist local people in es-tablishing wildlife related businesses. AWF’sForestry Environmental Accounting Services


project works to assess the economic value ofnatural resources. In addition, AWF has begunnew programs to assist the expansion of private-sector conservation (AWF, 1999) and purchasegovernment-owned wildlife land (AWF, 2000).Micro-credit programs, popular for a long

time in development circles, are also becomingan increasing part of conservation programs.Alternative income generating schemes are nowbeing linked to wildlife conservation by NGOsthrough programs such as small savings andcredit groups and business cooperatives. WWFhas begun savings and credit projects aroundthe marine park in Mafia Island and currentlysponsors women’s forestry and seaweed coop-eratives in Menai Bay. Care International hasalso linked the conservation of Jozani Forestand Misali Island to revolving loan funds forlocal communities.This new move towards an emphasis on en-

vironmental accounting methods, privatization,and micro-credit schemes is a substantial shiftfrom international conservation NGOs’ formerfocus on directly funding state-led conservationprograms. Although these institutions still workwith the state, their programs are more oftenoriented toward reducing the role of govern-ment rather than extending its influence. Thisapplies both to market-based conservation mea-sures, as well as to community-based conser-vation programs. Rather than working throughthe national government to implement projects,NGOs are now more able to bypass the stateand work directly at the local level.

8. THE NEWALLIANCE—CONVERGENCE OR

CO-OPTATION?

While NGOs and development agencies alikeherald their emerging cooperative relationshipsas groundbreaking innovations to create moreeffective conservation programs, the desire toimprove conservation programs is not the onlything driving these alliances (Holdgate, 1992).The focus on ‘‘community-based conservation’’in Tanzania did, in fact, arise from struggleswithin conservation programs to improve re-lationships around parks and protected areas.Simultaneously, development institutions wereresponding to external and internal critiquesabout the need to consider factors such as theenvironment, the importance of local partici-pation, and involving ‘‘civil society.’’

In many ways the convergence of develop-ment and conservation agendas seems natural.But an additional outcome of this new focus onworking directly at the community level is thatit provides increased validity to the neoliberalideal of a reduced role for the state. Develop-ment institutions can now direct their fundingin a way that is deemed environmentally andsocially responsible without having to engagewith the government. NGOs are a useful meansof channeling these funds that can bypass thestate and theoretically reach the local level.Likewise, conservation NGOs, with sub-

stantially increased budgets, no longer need torely on the state for the implementation of theirprograms. While this may allow NGO pro-grams to operate more autonomously from thestate, this autonomy is gained at the expense ofa new dependency on international develop-ment institutions. NGOs must now direct theirprograms in ways that correspond with theneoliberal development goals of governmentretrenchment and a focus on market mecha-nisms.While the increasing focus on working at the

community level seems to have arisen inde-pendently in both conservation and develop-ment circles, the increasing emphasis on privatesector involvement, using market mechanismsfor conservation, and on macroeconomic en-vironmental reforms appears to have its basisin the priorities of international developmentagencies. NGOs have been willing to incorpo-rate this focus and rhetoric in order to expandtheir programs and gain access to a new sourceof funding. There is nothing, however in thehistory of the conservation movement in Tan-zania to lead to the conclusion that this newemphasis emerged from conservation organi-zations themselves. The NGO programmaticshift toward emphasizing market mechanismsfor conservation seems to have occurred with,rather than before, this new infusion of funds.In Tanzania, NGO programs paralleled in-

ternational development policies in many ways,but even more closely these programs paral-leled the priorities of their funders. EarlyNGOs, such as the SPFE, focused on estab-lishing exclusive protected areas and reserves tofit in with their British funders’ vision of a‘‘wild and natural’’ Africa. In the post-colonialperiod, the dominant conservation NGOs inTanzania were funded predominantly by up-per-middle class Europeans and Americanswho were driven by a sense of responsibility toeducate poor African countries about the im-


portance of conservation and to protect Africanwildlife from the threats of poaching and en-croachment by rapidly expanding human pop-ulations. Today, NGO programs around theworld are increasingly incorporating neoliberal,market-based programs in order to gain accessto newly available development funds. Multi-lateral and bilateral aid now comprises a sub-stantial part of NGO revenues. This change infunding for international conservation NGOshas had a substantial influence on their policies,and conservation programs in Tanzania haveshifted accordingly to align with the priorities oftheir new funders.While the new focus of wildlife conservation

in Tanzania may have been driven as much bychanging relations of power and funding as byconservation for its own sake, the emergingrelationship between NGOs and internationaldevelopment institutions has the potential tobring positive outcomes to Tanzania and otherdeveloping countries around the world. The

new focus of development agencies on NGOsand environmental issues has opened up sub-stantial new resources for chronically under-funded conservation programs. The emphasisplaced on community-based initiatives, whilepossibly serving to legitimate current develop-ment agendas, is also bringing attention to theproblems of exclusionary conservation methodsof the past. If community-based conservationprograms meet their stated goals, they couldhelp to give local people increased control overtheir own resources, as well as provide themwith a new source of income. Whether or notthey work together, both conservation NGOsand international development institutions haveexerted considerable influence over conserva-tion policies implemented in Tanzania and in-ternationally, and they will continue to do so forsome time to come. The ideology, agendas, andprograms of these institutions have shifteddramatically over time, and undoubtedly theywill do so again.

NOTES

1. Officially ‘‘Tanganyika’’ until 1964, when mainland

Tanzania politically united with the island of Zanzibar.

2. The discussion of the colonial roots of nature

preservation in Africa is not intended to detract from

the value of national parks and protected areas for the

conservation of biodiversity. Indeed, the Ngorongoro

Conservation Area, an integrated biosphere reserve in

Tanzania, is one of the few places where black rhinoc-

eroses can still be seen in the wild today (Leader-

Williams et al., 1996b), and parks and reserves play a

key role in protecting many species and habitats. The

evolution of the national park ideal in Africa was not

however purely for the conservation of nature, but

involved an ideology inherited from a European way of

viewing Africa. The absence of human beings as a

requirement for a ‘‘natural’’ landscape is also a product

of this worldview.

3. At a time when most African countries were

focusing on urban industrialization and falling into

relationships of dependency with former colonial pow-

ers, Nyerere’s ‘‘ujamaa’’ program emphasized rural

agricultural development and self-reliance, which would

be obtained through education and socialism. It was

based on an idealized notion of traditional African

systems in which family and community are central. The

government’s role was to facilitate and encourage local

initiatives, with a strong focus on social service provision

at the local level. Nyerere’s goal was to get beyond

problems of the past, which consisted of ‘‘thinking of

development in terms of things, and not of people. . .

people can only develop themselves’’ (Nyerere, 1973).

4. In the Arusha Declaration (1967), Nyerere stated:

‘‘It is stupid to rely on money as the major instrument of

development when we know only too well that our

country is poor. . . it is even more stupid(,) for us to

imagine that we shall rid ourselves of our poverty

through foreign financial assistance rather than our own

financial resources. . . The development of a country is

brought about by people, not by money.’’

REFERENCES

African Conservation Centre (ACC) (1999). Summaryof exploring conservation by communities in EastAfrica and community institutions for the manage-ment of natural resources workshops. In WorkshopSeries on Conservation by Communities in East

Africa. Regional Workshop Series. African Conser-vation Centre. Nairobi, Kenya.

Anderson, D., & Grove, R. (1987). Conservation inAfrica: people policies and practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) (1999). Annualreport. Nairobi, Kenya: AWF.

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) (2000). Annualreport. Available: http://www.awf.org/about/AW-FAnnRpt2000.pdf.

Babu, A. M. (1991). The limits of populist nationalism:the case of Tanzania. In H. Campbell, & H. Stein(Eds.), The IMF and Tanzania: the dynamics ofliberalisation. Southern Africa political economy seriestrust. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Bonner, R. (1993). At the hand of man: peril and hope forAfrica’s wildlife. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Brandon, K. E., & Wells, M. (1992). People and parks:linking protected area management with local com-munities. Washington, DC: World Bank, WorldWildlife Fund, USAID.

Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A. L., & Zerner, C. (1998).Representing communities: histories and politics ofcommunity-based natural resource management.Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157–168.

Campbell, H., & Stein, H. (1991). The process ofliberalisation in Tanzania. In H. Campbell, & H.Stein (Eds.), The IMF and Tanzania: the dynamics ofliberalisation. Southern Africa political economy seriestrust. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Coulson, A. (1982). Tanzania: a political economy.Oxford University Press.

Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close forcomfort? The impact of official aid on nongovern-mental organizations. World Development, 24(6),961–973.

FIVAS––The Association for International Waterand Forest Studies. (2000). Power conflicts––TheWorld Bank. [FIVAS electronic report]. Available:http://www.solidaritetshuset.org/fivas/pub/power_c/k15.htm.

Gibbon, P. (1995). Liberalised development in Tanza-nia: studies on accumulation processes and localinstitutions. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainsti-tutet.

Gibson, C. C., & Marks, S. A. (1995). Transformingrural hunters into conservationists: an assessment ofcommunity-based wildlife management programs inAfrica. World Development, 23(6), 941–957.

Global Environment Facility (GEF) (2000). Introduc-tion to the GEF. [GEF Secretariat web document].Available: http://www.gefweb.org.

Havnevik, K. J. (1993). Tanzania: the limits to develop-ment from above. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afri-kainstitutet, in cooperation with Mkuki na NyotaPublishers, Tanzania; Stockholm, Sweden.

Holdgate, M. (1992). Can wildlife pay for itself? InPublished from a speech given at the Royal Society ofArts in London. September 12. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

Hoy, P. (1998). Players and issues in international aid.West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.

International Labour Organization (ILO) (1972). Em-ployment, incomes, and equality: a strategy forincreasing productive employment in Kenya. Geneva:ILO.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2000). Letter ofintent of the government of Tanzania. March 9,

2000. Available: http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2000/tza/01/index.htm.

Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyondborders: advocacy networks in international politics.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univeristy Press.

Kiondo, A. (1991). The nature of economic reforms inTanzania. In H. Campbell, & H. Stein (Eds.), TheIMF and Tanzania: the dynamics of liberalisation.Southern Africa political economy series trust. Ha-rare, Zimbabwe.

Kiss, A. (1990). Living with wildlife: wildlife resourcemanagement with local participation in Africa. WorldBank Technical Paper No. 130. The World Bank,Washington, DC.

Kitching, G. (1982). Development and underdevelopmentin historical perspective: populism, nationalism andindustrialization. London and New York: Methuen.

Leader-Williams, N., Kayera, J. A., & Overton, G. L.(1996a). Tourist hunting in Tanzania. Occasionalpaper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission.No. 14.

Leader-Williams, N., Kayera, J. A., & Overton, G. L.(1996b). Community-based conservation in Tanzania.Occasional paper of the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission. No. 15.

Loyacono, L. L. (1993). The invisible export (tourism’sinfluence on the economy). State Legislatures,19(12), 34–37.

McLeod, D. V. L. (1999). Tourism and the globalizationof a Canary Island. Journal of the Royal Anthropo-logical Institute, 5(3), 443.

Mercer, C. (1999). Reconceptionalizing the state-societyrelations in Tanzania: are NGOs ’’making a differ-ence’’. Area, 31(3), 247–258.

Murphree, M. W. (1993). Communities as resourcemanagement institutions. Sustainable AgricultureProgramme, International Institute for Environmentand Development. Gatekeeper series, No. 36. London,UK.

Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American mind (3rdedn). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Neumann, R. P. (1992). Political ecology of wildlifeconservation in the Mt. Meru area of NortheastTanzania. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 3,85–98.

Neumann, R. P. (1995). Ways of seeing Africa: colonialrecasting of African society and landscape in Seren-geti National Park. Ecumene, 2(2), 149–169.

Neumann, R. P. (1998). Imposing wilderness: strugglesover livelihood and nature preservation in Africa.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Newmark, W. D., & Hough, J. L. (2000). Conservingwildlife in Africa: integrated conservation and de-velopment projects and beyond. BioScience, 50(7),585.

Nyerere, J. K. (1967). The Arusha Declaration. [TheInternet African History Sourcebook]. Available:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html#Modern Africa.

Nyerere, J. K. (1973). Freedom and development. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Otto, J., Kamara, B., & Lissu, T. A. (1998). Closingcorridors: impact of policy, practices and privatisa-


tion on wildlife movements in the Tarangire-Many-ara Area. Study for EPIQ Tanzania. USAID DraftReport.

Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development. Interna-tional Development Review (XI), 2–6.

Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability and the wealth ofnations. ESD Studies and Monographs Series No. 5.Washington DC: The World Bank.

Shivji, I. G. (1991). The politics of liberalisation in Tan-zania: notes on the crisis of ideological hegemony. InH. Campbell, & H. Stein (Eds.), The IMF and Tan-zania: the dynamics of liberalisation. Southern Africapolitical economy series trust. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Stein, H. (1991). Economic policy and the IMF in Tan-zania: conditionality, conflict, and convergence. InH. Campbell, & H. Stein (Eds.), The IMF and Tan-zania: the dynamics of liberalisation. Southern Africapolitical economy series trust. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Stevens, S. (1997). The legacy of yellowstone. In S.Stevens (Ed.), Conservation through cultural survival:indigenous people and protected areas. WashingtonDC: Island Press.

Taylor, G., & Johansson, L. (1996). Our voices, ourwords and our pictures. Plans truths and videotapesin Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Forests Trees andPeople Newsletter, 30, Available: http://www.trees.-slu.se/news/30/30front.htm.

Union of International Associations (1999). Yearbookof international organizations. [Internet databaseand publication]. Available: http://www.uia.org/uia-stats/ytb299.htm.

United Nations (UN) (1987). General Assembly 96thplenary meeting, December 11. A/RES/42/186.

USAID (1997). New Partnership Initiative: a strategicapproach to development partnering. US Agency forInternational Development website publication (11/20/99). Available: http:www.ifo.usaid.gov/pubs/npi/npiresrc.htm.

Wade, R. (1997). Greening the Bank: The struggle overthe environment 1979–1995. In D. Kapur (Ed.), TheWorld Bank: its first half century. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.

Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and worldcivic politics. Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Watterson, G. G. (1961). The Arusha conservationconference. Unasylva 15 (4). [FAO Corporate Doc-ument Repository]. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5401e/x5401e06.htm.

Wolfensohn, J. D. (1999). Comprehensive developmentframework (discussion draft). [World Bank NGO/Civil society website]. Available: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/NGOs/home.

World Bank (2000a). Non-governmental organizationsand Society. [World Bank NGO/Civil Society web-site]. Available: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/NGOs/home.

World Bank (2000b). Cooperation between the WorldBank and NGOs: FY97 progress report. [WorldBank NGO/Civil Society website]. Available: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/d3f59aa3a570-f67a852567cf00695688/0793eadf7ca23312852567ed00-4c4bf4.

World Bank and World Wildlife Fund (1999). WorldBank/WWF Alliance for forest conservation andsustainable use: annual report. Washington DC: TheWorld Bank/WWF.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (1996). Structural adjust-ment, the environment, and sustainable development.London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (1998). Annual report.World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) (2000a).

Tanzania: institutional support for natural resourcesconservation. [WWF website]. Available: http://www.panda.org/resources/inthefield/lop/lop_tz.htm.

World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) (2000b).Macroeconomic reforms in Southern Africa. [Mac-roeconomics for Sustainable Development ProgramOffice website]. Available: http://www.panda.org/re-sources/publications/sustainability/mpo/reforms/ac-tivities.htm.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2000c). Tanzania:country profile. [WWF website]. Available: http://www.panda.org/resources/countryprofiles/tanzania.


Documents

Convergence or Convenience? International Conservation NGOs and Development Assistance in Tanzania