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