TanzanianNon-Governmental

Organisations-Their Perceptions ofTheir Relationships

with the Government of Tanzania

and Donors, and Their Role in

Poverty Reduction and Development

RESEARCH ON POVERTY

ALLEVIATION

R E P O A

RESEARCH ON POVERTY

ALLEVIATION

R E P O A

Research on Poverty Alleviation, REPOA, is an independent, non-profit organisation concerned with poverty and related policy issues in Tanzania. REPOA undertakes and facilitates research, enables monitoring, and promotes capacity building, dialogue and knowledge sharing.

REPOA’s research agenda is concerned with poverty and its alleviation. Our objectives are to: - develop the research capacity in Tanzania; - enhance stakeholders’ knowledge of poverty

issues and empower them to act; - contribute to policy dialogue; - support the monitoring of the implementation

of poverty related policy;- strengthen national and international poverty

research networks, and- forge linkages between research(ers) and users.

It is our conviction that research provides the means for the acquisition of knowledge necessary for improving the quality of welfare in Tanzanian society.

REPOA’s Research Reports contain the results of research financed by REPOA. Our Special Papers contain the findings of commissioned studies conducted under our programmes of research, training and capacity building. The authors of these research reports and special papers are entitled to use their material in other publications; with acknowledgement to REPOA.

REPOA has published the results from this research as part of our mandate to disseminate information. Any views expressed are those of the authors alone and should not be attributed to REPOA.

Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA)P.O. Box 33223, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 157 Mgombani Street, Regent EstateTel: +255(0)(22) 270 00 83 / 277 2556Fax: +255(0)(22) 277 57 38Email: repoa@repoa.or.tzWebsite: www.repoa.or.tz

ISBN 9987 - 449 - 36 - 0

RESEARCH ON POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Special Paper No. 07.21

�

Tanzanian Non-Governmental Organisations -

Their Perceptions of

Their Relationships with the Government of Tanzania and Donors,

And

Their Role in Poverty Reduction and Development

��

���

Tanzanian Non-Governmental Organisations -

Their Perceptions of

Their Relationships with the Government of Tanzania and Donors,

And

Their Role in Poverty Reduction and Development

Special Paper 07.21

Mkuki na Nyota PublishersP. O. Box 4246Dar es Salaam

www.mkukinanyota.com

�v

Publ�shedfor: ResearchonPovertyAllev�at�onREPOA P.O.Box33223,DaresSalaam,Tanzan�a 157Mgomban�Street,RegentEstate Tel:+255(0)(22)2700083/2772556 Fax:+255(0)(22)2775738 Ema�l:repoa@repoa.or.tz Webs�te:www.repoa.or.tz

By: Mkuk�naNyotaPubl�shers 6MuhondaSt.,M�ss�onQuarter,Kar�akoo P.O.Box4246,DaresSalaam,Tanzan�a Ema�l: ed�tor�al.uhar�r�@mkuk�nanyota.com Webs�te:www.mkuk�nanyota.com

© REPOA,2007

ISBN9987-449-36-0

Allr�ghtsreserved.Nopartofth�spubl�cat�onmaybereproducedortransm�tted�nanyformorbyanymeansw�thoutthewr�ttenperm�ss�onofthecopyr�ghtholderorthepubl�sher.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Lists

Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... v�

Abbrev�at�ons........................................................................................................................................................................................v��

AcknowLedgements...............................................................................................................................................viii

AbstrAct............................................................................................................................................................................ ix

executive.summAry..................................................................................................................................................... x

1.. introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 TheEmergenceofCSOsandNGOs�nTanzan�a............................................................................................... 1

1.2 TheEnv�ronmentToday................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.. methodoLogy...................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 NGOMapp�ngExerc�se.................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Sampl�ngFrame................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 DataCollect�on..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.. Findings................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Profileofthe81NGOsthatCompletedtheSurveyQuest�onna�re...................................................... 5

3.2 Profileofthe10NGOsthatPart�c�pated�ntheIn-depthInterv�ews.................................................. 6

3.3 FocusofWorkofPart�c�pat�ngNGOsbySector............................................................................................... 6

3.4 NatureofWorkofthePart�c�pat�ngNGOs........................................................................................................... 7

3.5 NGOs’Percept�onsoftheMean�ngofAdvocacy............................................................................................. 8

3.6 NGOsWork�nPovertyReduct�onandDevelopment................................................................................... 9

3.7 TheRelat�onsh�pofNGOsw�thDonors.............................................................................................................. 10

3.8 TheRolesofNGOsandthe�rRelat�onsh�pw�ththeGovernmentofTanzan�a......................... 13

3.9 TheImpactofNGOsonPovertyReduct�onandDevelopment......................................................... 16

3.10 TheImpactofNGOsonGovernmentPol�cy................................................................................................... 18

3.11 Barr�ersfacedbyNGOs�n�nfluenc�ngGovernmentPol�cy.................................................................... 20

4.0. concLusion.And.recommendAtions..................................................................................................23

4.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 23

4.2 TheRolesofNGOsandthe�rRelat�onsh�pw�ththeGovernmentofTanzan�a........................... 23

4.3 NGOs’Recommendat�onstoGovernment....................................................................................................... 24

4.4 TheRelat�onsh�pofNGOsw�thDonors.............................................................................................................. 24

4.5 NGOs’Recommendat�onstoDonors................................................................................................................... 25

4.6 NGOsImpactonPovertyReduct�onandDevelopment�nTanzan�a............................................... 25

4.7 Recommendat�onsforImprovements�nNGOsandNetworks........................................................... 26

reFerences......................................................................................................................................................................27

other.PubLicAtions.by.rePoA.............................................................................................................................28

v�

Tables

Table1 D�str�but�onofpart�c�pat�ngNGOsbyReg�on.................................................................................................6

Table2 HowsurveyedNGOscharacter�sethe�rwork...................................................................................................7

Table3 HowNGOsmeasure/perce�vethe�rpos�t�ve�mpactonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment....................................................................................................................................................................17

v��

Abbreviations

CBO Commun�tyBasedOrgan�sat�on

CCM ChamachaMap�nduz�(Revolut�onaryParty)–Majorpol�t�calparty

CIDA Canad�anInternat�onalDevelopmentAgency

CSO C�v�lSoc�etyOrgan�sat�on

DFID DepartmentforInternat�onalDevelopment(UK)

FGM FemaleGen�talMut�lat�on

GOT GovernmentofTanzan�a

FINNIDA F�nn�shInternat�onalDevelopmentAgency

FEMACT Fem�n�sts’Act�v�stCoal�t�on

IMF Internat�onalMonetaryFund

MKUKUTA K�swah�l�acronymforMkakati wa Kukuzi Uchumi na Kuondoa wa Umaskini Tanzania(TheNat�onalStrategyforGrowthandReduct�onofPoverty)

MSDANISH Dan�shAssoc�at�onforInternat�onalCo-operat�on

NGO Non-GovernmentalOrgan�sat�on

NORAD Norweg�anAgencyforDevelopmentCooperat�on

PER Publ�cExpend�tureRev�ew

PINGOS Pastoral�st&Ind�genousNGOsForum

PMO Pr�meM�n�ster’sOffice

PMS PovertyMon�tor�ngSystem

PPW PovertyPol�cyWeek

PRS PovertyReduct�onStrategy

REPOA ResearchonPovertyAllev�at�on

SIDA Swed�shInternat�onalDevelopmentCooperat�onAgency

TAMWA Tanzan�aMed�aWomen’sAssoc�at�on

TANGO Tanzan�aNGONetwork

TACOSODE Tanzan�aCounc�lforSoc�alDevelopment

TGNP Tanzan�aGenderNetwork�ngProgramme

UNDP Un�tedNat�onsDevelopmentProgramme

URT Un�tedRepubl�cofTanzan�a

VPO V�cePres�dent’sOffice

v���

ACkNOwLEDGEMENTS

Theobject�veofth�sjo�ntresearchprojectonC�v�lSoc�ety,DevelopmentandPovertyReduct�onwastounderstandthetr�part�terelat�onsh�psamongCSOs,donorsandtheState�npovertyreduct�onefforts.Theprojectwasconducted�nCentralAmer�ca-ElSalvador,CostaR�ca,N�caragua,HondurasandGuatemala(�nacomb�nedreport),Eth�op�a,andTanzan�a.

TheprojectwasfundedbytheDevelopmentCooperat�onofIrelandandwas�mplementedjo�ntlyw�thDubl�nC�tyUn�vers�ty.REPOA�sgratefulfortheopportun�tytobe�nvolved�nth�sprojectandweextendourthankstoourcolleaguesattheDubl�nC�tyUn�vers�ty,�npart�cularDrE�leenConnollyandDrJohnDoyle,wholedtheresearchteam.WearealsogratefulthattheDubl�nC�tyUn�vers�tyhasg�venperm�ss�onforustopubl�shth�sspec�alpaperwh�chsummar�sesthefind�ngsfromTanzan�a.

REPOAstaffmemberswhoundertookth�sprojectwereSen�orResearchFellowDrAnnMayandresearcherMsJoan�taMagongo.W�etzeL�ndeboom,alsoofREPOA�sacknowledgedforh�ssoundtechn�calass�stancedur�ngtheproject.Thegather�ngofdataandmanagementofthedatabasewasablyattendedtobyBagen�Wambura,Jov�taDeograt�usandHal�maChande.Spec�althanksareduetobothGrahamBoydforh�srev�ewofthefullreportandconstruct�vecommentstowardstheproduct�onofth�sspec�alpaper,andtoChr�sDalywhowroteth�sdocument.

Lastbutnotleast,th�sreportwouldnothavebeenposs�blew�thoutthevaluable�nputg�venbythoseNGOswhotookpart�nth�ssurvey.Theyaretoonumeroustoment�onhere,savethattherewere91Tanzan�anc�v�lsoc�etyorgan�sat�onsfrome�ghtreg�ons,�nthe�n�t�aldatacollect�onroundandthentenwhotookpart�nthesubsequent�n-depth�nterv�ews.Wehopethatbypubl�sh�ngth�spaperwehelptora�sefurtherawarenessaboutthev�talrolethatc�v�lsoc�etyorgan�sat�onsplay�nthedevelopmentofth�scountryandTanzan�ansoc�etyasawhole;aswellasbr�ng�ngattent�ontothechallengestheseorgan�sat�onsface�nplay�ngth�srole.

�x

ABSTRACT

AsaresultofstructuraladjustmentprogrammesadoptedbytheTanzan�aneconomy�nthe1980sandearly1990s,theroleforc�v�lsoc�ety�ndevelopmentandserv�cedel�very�nTanzan�aexpandeddramat�cally,encourag�ngexplos�vegrowth�nthenon-governmentsector.TheNGOPol�cyof2000and the subsequentTanzan�a Non-Governmental Organ�zat�ons Act of 2002 were formulated toestabl�shtheleg�slat�veframeworktoallowNGOstooperatefreelyandeffect�vely.However,manyprov�s�onsrema�nunclearand�nneedofrev�s�on.Moreover,recentdonorfund�ngstrateg�esare�ncreas�nglyre-d�rect�ngdevelopmenta�dtotheGovernmentofTanzan�a,therebytransferr�nggreaterrespons�b�l�tytothegovernmentforthefuturedevelopmentofanautonomousc�v�lsoc�ety.Asyet,�t�sunknownhowNGOsw�llbeaffectedorw�llrespond,butth�strendmayusher�naneweraofcooperat�onandcollaborat�onbetweenNGOs,donors,andtheState.

Th�spaperpresentsfind�ngsfromasurveyofasect�onofTanzan�anNGOsonthe�rpercept�onsofthe�rrelat�onsh�psw�ththegovernmentanddonors,andthe�rv�ewsonthe�rrolesand�mpactsonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment.Itwasfoundthatcloserplann�ngandwork�ngrelat�onsh�psbetweenthethreesectorsareemerg�ng,asev�dencedbycollaborat�ondur�ngthedevelopmentoftheNat�onalStrategyforGrowthandReduct�onofPoverty(MKUKUTA)�n2003-05.However,anatmosphereofsusp�c�onrema�ns.NGOsexpresseddoubtastowhetherthegovernmentfreelyshares�nformat�on,andtheyfeltthat�fstrong,vested�nterestswereopposedthenNGOsubm�ss�onsmadel�ttle�mpact.Respondentsrecommendedthatc�v�lsoc�etyshouldcont�nuetomon�torandscrut�n�zethegovernment,butequallythatNGOsshouldactasastrateg�cl�nkbetweenthegovernmentandlocalcommun�t�estoenhancepol�cyoutcomes.Add�t�onally,NGOscanass�sttofillgapswherethegovernmentdoesnot,orlacksthecapac�tyto,prov�deserv�ces.

Descr�b�ngthe�rrelat�onsh�psw�thdonors,NGOsrout�nelyc�tedpressuresw�threspecttoprogrammepr�or�t�esandcompl�ance.Manyrespondentsalsov�ewedthegovernment/donorrelat�onsh�passkewedunevenly�nfavourofdonors.Respondentsrecommendedthatdonorsdevelopprojectsjo�ntlyw�thNGOstoreflectd�str�ct/localpr�or�t�es,andreducethecomplex�t�esoffund�ngappl�cat�onsandreport�ng.Part�c�pantsalsostronglyrequestedthatdonorsexpandcurrentfund�ngmechan�smsto�ncludeNGOs’coreoperat�ngcosts,personneland�nfrastructuretoexpandandsusta�norgan�sat�onalworkbeyondthetermsof�nd�v�dualprojects.

Part�c�pat�ng NGOs also recogn�sed the need to �mprove the�r own �nd�v�dual and network�ngcapac�t�estoenhancethe�rcontr�but�onstopol�cydebateandserv�cedel�very.Moreover,acodeofeth�csappl�cabletoorgan�sat�onsatalllevelsfromnat�onalNGOstov�llage/commun�tybasedgroupswasrecommended,sothatthecred�b�l�tyofc�v�lsoc�ety�sstrengthenedandma�nta�ned.Mosts�gn�ficantly,NGOsexpressedtheunamb�guousdes�refortruepartnersh�psw�ththegovernmentanddonoragenc�es.Throughcomm�tmenttogreateropenness,transparencyandcooperat�onfromallpart�es,�twasfeltthatthecommongoalsofallev�at�ngpovertyandfurther�ngdevelopment�nTanzan�acanbereal�zed.

x

ExECuTivE SuMMARy

Purpose

ResearchonPovertyAllev�at�on(REPOA),�ncollaborat�onw�thDubl�nC�tyUn�vers�ty,conductedasurveyofTanzan�annon-governmentalorgan�sat�ons(NGOs)dur�ng2005toexam�netheextenttowh�chtheseorgan�sat�onsarefreetooperateandtocontr�buteeffect�velytopol�cydevelopment�nTanzan�a.Thestudya�medtobetterunderstandtherolesand�mpactsofTanzan�anNGOsonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment,andtoexam�netherelat�onsh�psofNGOsw�thdonorsandw�ththeGovernmentofTanzan�a(GOT).Th�spaperpresentsquant�tat�veandqual�tat�vefind�ngsfromthestudy,andusesselectedquotesfrompart�c�pantstoshowlocalv�ewpo�ntsonthesecr�t�cal�ssuesandtoreflecttheun�quesoc�alandpol�t�calcontextofTanzan�anc�v�lsoc�ety.

Findings and Recommendations:

Profile of Participating NGOs

Ofthe81NGOsthatcompletedthesurveyquest�onna�re,57%wererural-basedand43%wereurbanbased.Theheadquartersoforgan�sat�onssurveyedwerelocated�n8ofthe26reg�onsofTanzan�a.The med�an year of reg�strat�on was m�d-1997, for a med�an age of part�c�pat�ng organ�sat�onsofapprox�matelye�ghtyears.TheoldestNGOsurveyedwas reg�stered �n1965.Themost recentreg�strat�onwas�n2004.Membersh�poftheseorgan�sat�onstotalledapprox�mately30,000Tanzan�ans.Ofthetenorgan�sat�onsselectedfor�n-depth�nterv�ews,s�xNGOswerechosenandfournetworks.Threewerebased�nArusha;sevenwerelocated�nDaresSalaam.Themed�anageofthesegroupswaselevenyears.

Almost80%oftheNGOssurveyedspendalloralmostallofthe�rt�meonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment�ssues,pr�mar�lyfocus�ngonsoc�o-econom�cdevelopment,healthandHIV/AIDS,andwomen’s,ch�ldren’soryouthdevelopment.

The largest number of organ�sat�ons (47%) character�zed the�r work as a m�xture of serv�ce andadvocacy,andover80%ofrespondentsfeltthatadvocacywork�s�ncreas�ng�n�mportance.

Over90%oforgan�sat�onssurveyedaredonorfunded,andthree-fifthsofrespondentsrece�vefund�ngfor60to100%ofthe�ract�v�t�es.Therema�n�ng10%areself-support�ngthroughconsultanc�es,orfundedbythe�rmembersh�por�nd�v�duals.

The Roles of NGOs and their Relationship with the Government of Tanzania

Overall,thefind�ngsfromthestudy�nd�catethattherelat�onsh�pbetweenNGOsandthegovernmentofTanzan�a�sexpand�ngand�mprov�ng,character�zedby�ncreasedcommun�cat�on,�nteract�onandtrust.Respondentsexpressedthebel�efthatthegovernmentnowbetterunderstandsthatc�v�lsoc�etyhasaclearroletoplay�npol�cyformulat�on.MostNGOs�nd�catedthattheydeal‘d�rectly’w�ththeGOT,e�theras�nd�v�dualorgan�sat�onsorthroughthe�rnetworkaffil�at�ons,andthat,onthewhole,the�rfrequencyandlevelofcontactaresat�sfactory.

However,anatmosphereofsusp�c�onpervadesmuchofthesectorand�ts relat�onsh�pw�ththeState.SomerespondentsexpresseddoubtastowhethertheGOTfreelyshares �nformat�on,anddesp�tethegrow�ngtrust,NGOsrecommendthatc�t�zensandc�v�lsoc�etyorgan�sat�onscont�nuetomon�torandscrut�n�zethegovernmenttoprotectthe�r‘publ�c�nvestment’,�.e.thatc�v�lsoc�etyreta�nsaroleasa‘watchdog’.

x�

Inadd�t�on, �twasarguedthatNGOsshouldanalysegovernmentpol�cyandenhanceoutcomeswhereverposs�blebyprov�d�ng�nformat�onandoffer�ngcreat�vesolut�ons.NGOscanacttochanneland�nterpret �nformat�onbackandforthbetweengovernmentandthegrassrootscommun�t�eswheretheywork,aswellasass�sttofillgapswherethegovernmentdoesnot,orlacksthecapac�tyto,prov�deserv�ces.Respondentscalledforgreateropenness,transparencyandcooperat�onfromthegovernment.Part�c�pantspo�ntedtotheneedtorev�setheNGOActandforthegovernmenttoprov�declearmechan�smsto�nst�tut�onal�zethe�nputofc�v�lsoc�ety�nach�ev�ngcommongoalsforTanzan�a.NGOatt�tudesrevealedagenerousrec�procalsp�r�t,recommend�ngbetter�ntegrat�onandshar�ngw�ththegovernment.

Amajor�tyofNGOsadvocatedcollect�veact�ontobr�ng�ssuesbeforethegovernment.Networksandcoal�t�onswereseenascruc�ally�mportanttoadvanc�ngpro-poorpol�cy.Theyallow�nformat�onandexpert�setobesharedand�mpartgreatercred�b�l�tytoNGOslobby�ngthegovernment.Somed�sadvantagesofnetworkswerealsonoted.Theymaybed�fficulttocoord�nate,andcanbecometoolargeorpowerful,wh�chmaycomprom�sethepr�nc�plesandpr�or�t�esof�nd�v�dualmemberNGOs.Somerespondentsremarkedthatpoor,ruraland�solatedcommun�t�esareoftencutofffromcollaborat�veeffortsandforcedtoactalone,whereasahandfulofstrong‘el�te’profess�onal�sedgroupsgetnot�ced.There�softenastrongsenseofmarg�nal�zat�onfeltbyNGOsouts�deofDaresSalaam.

Indeed,find�ngsshowthatthereg�onald�str�but�onofTanzan�anNGOs�sh�ghlyskewedw�ththemajor�tyoforgan�sat�onss�tuated�nandaroundDaresSalaamandothermajorurbanhubs1.Th�sd�sproport�onaterepresentat�oncanleadtothecla�mthatc�v�lsoc�ety�s‘Dar-centr�c’,thateveryth�ngbeg�ns and ends �n Dar. However, data �nd�cates that 94% of NGOs surveyed engage w�th thegovernmentd�rectly–almosthalfoftheseatallbureaucrat�c levels, fromv�llagetonat�onal,butma�nlyatd�str�ct level.Th�swould �nd�catethatd�stancefromDaresSalaamm�ghtnotser�ouslyrestr�ctaccesstogovernment.Rather,�treflectsd�fferences�nthedegreeandlevelofaccess;mostruralNGOsdonothaveopportun�t�estopart�c�pate�nmeet�ngsw�ththeupperechelonsofgovernmentpol�cymakersthattakeplace�nDaresSalaam.Nevertheless,�twasstronglyarguedthatmeasuresbetakento�ncreasethevo�ceofsmallerlocalorgan�sat�ons.

It was agreed that advocacy efforts need to be well �nformed and well organ�sed.V�ew�ng thegovernment as an adversary was seen as counterproduct�ve. Organ�sat�ons must know thegovernment’spos�t�ononan�ssuefirst,and�dent�fytheentrypo�ntsandkeyoffic�alstoeffect�vely�nfluencepol�cydebate.Indeed,somerespondentssuggestedthatthelackofun�tybetweenNGOson�mportant�ssueswasaweaknessofTanzan�anc�v�lsoc�ety.OthersfeltthatmanyNGOslacksk�llsandcapac�ty,�nclud�ngtheab�l�tytoart�culatethe�rm�ss�onandv�s�on.Part�c�pantswerespl�tthoughonthetop�cofwhetherornottheGOTtakesappropr�ateact�onon�nformat�onsuppl�edto�tbyNGOs.Therewasanoverallsensethat�fthe�nformat�ond�dnotagreew�ththeGOT’spos�t�on,or�fstrong,vested�nterestswereopposed,thenNGOeffortsmadeno�mpact.Thehes�tancyofresponsesonth�squest�on�nd�catedthatmoreprogresscouldbemade�nth�sarea.

The Relationship of NGOs with Donors

Dur�ngthestudy,respondentswereoftenqu�cktodescr�bethe�rrelat�onsw�thdonorsascord�alandsmooth,butw�thfurtherprob�ng,numerousfrustrat�onswereev�dent.Tanzan�anNGOslargelyrece�veprojectbasedfund�ngfromdonors,andrespondentswereexasperatedbytherestr�ct�onsattachedtoth�stypeoffund�ng.Oftenveryl�m�tedresourcesaremadeava�lablefororgan�sat�onalrunn�ngcosts,salar�esandequ�pment.Part�c�pantsstronglyarguedthatprojectonlyfund�ng�sunsusta�nable�nthelong-term;thatwhenprojectbasedfund�ng�sw�thdrawn,act�v�t�esoftenceaseabruptlyand1cf.Hoekstra,2004

x��

prematurely.Theyrecommendedthatdonorsallocatean�ncreasedproport�onoffund�ngtocoverNGOs’coreoperat�ngcosts,personneland�nfrastructure�nordertosusta�nact�v�t�esbeyondthetermsofcurrentprojects.Increasedfund�ngfortransportwasalsosuggestedtoexpandthepresenceandserv�cesofNGOs�nmoreremote,ruralareas.

NGOsalsorout�nelycompla�nedofpressure fromdonorsw�threspecttoprogrampr�or�t�esandcompl�ancew�th r�g�d fund�ngcond�t�ons,exempl�fiedbystatements thatNGOs’‘handsare t�ed’when�tcomestoprojectsthattheyw�shedtopursue.Ingeneral,part�c�pantssa�dthattheyweredo�ngtheprojectstheybel�eved�n,butwhenfurtherquest�oned,adm�ttedthat‘some’NGOsalteraproject’sdes�gntoal�gnw�thadonor’sagenda�nordertomob�l�zeresources.Forexample,somerespondentsfeltthatdonorstendtoprov�demorefund�ngforadvocacyandpol�cy�ssuesthanserv�cedel�very,wh�chmayexpla�ntheh�ghpercentageofNGOs�nthestudythatwere�nvolved�nsomeformofadvocacywork.Fund�ngst�pulat�onsmayalsobe�mpract�calforlocalcond�t�ons,forexample,genderrequ�rementshadbeen�ncorporatedratherperfunctor�ly�ntocerta�nprojects.Part�c�pantsrecommendedthatdonorsdevelopprojectsjo�ntlyw�thNGOstoreflectlocalpr�or�t�es.

Compl�cated bureaucrat�c requ�rements for fund�ng appl�cat�ons and report�ng were felt to beunnecessar�lyd�fficultandrestr�ct�ve.NGOsrequestedthatdonorsreducethecomplex�t�esoftheappl�cat�onprocessorprov�demoretechn�calass�stance,�nclud�ngcapac�tytra�n�ng�nthepreparat�onofjo�ntproposalstoactual�zethe�deaof‘partnersh�psfordevelopment’.F�nd�ngsalso�nd�catedthatthepercept�onsof�nternat�onalNGOdonorsarelargelypos�t�ve,wh�lethepercept�onsofoffic�aldonorsaremoreproblemat�c.Fund�ngproceduresforoffic�aldonorswerev�ewedasmoreelaborate,demand�ngandr�g�dandthe�ragendaswerefelttobe‘h�dden’morefrequently.

Part�c�pants asked that donors d�splay greater openness about fund�ng agendas and announcepr�or�t�es�nadvancesothatqual�fiedNGOscanapply,andthosew�thoutnecessaryexper�encewouldnotwastet�meandresourceswr�t�ngdoomedproposals.Donorscouldalso�ntroducea“pr�or�tyl�st”approachtofund�ng,wherebydonorsadvert�setop�csorprojectsbe�ngcons�deredforfund�ngnat�onally.NGOswouldthensubm�tproposalstodemonstraterelevantexpert�seandcapac�ty,andrece�vefund�ngforspec�ficport�onsoftheproject.Donorscouldl�nkd�sparateorgan�sat�onsthroughc�v�lsoc�etynetworkstoworkjo�ntlyontheseprojects.

Manyrespondentsalsov�ewedthegovernment/donorrelat�onsh�passkewedunevenly�nfavourofdonors.Statementsthatdonorsweremorepowerful,andthattheGOTlacksauthor�tyandlargelyal�gnsw�thdonors’d�rect�ves,wereprevalent.Otherrespondentsarguedthat,s�ncedecentral�zat�on,theeconomy�slargelyrunbyouts�ders,�nclud�ngthedonorcommun�tyand�nternat�onalfinanc�al�nst�tut�ons.

Astherecent�n�t�at�vesford�rect,governmenttogovernmentdevelopmenta�dare�mplemented,�nclud�ngthelatestgrant�nJanuary2006of$542.5m�ll�onfromBr�ta�n,�trema�nstobeseenhowNGOsw�llbeaffectedorw�llrespond.Itmayusher�naneweraofcooperat�onandcollaborat�onbetweenNGOsandtheState�f,forexample,qual�fiedNGOs�nthehealth,educat�onandwatersectorsarebrought�ntopartnersh�psbytheGOTandfundedtodel�verserv�ces.Wh�chever�mplementat�onstrateg�esarechosen,str�ngentgovernmentaccountab�l�ty forsectoral fundsw�llbeessent�al toach�ev�ngeconom�cprosper�ty�nTanzan�a.Theallocat�onandd�sbursementofthesefundsw�llneedtobecont�nuallyandcloselyexam�ned.

x���

Perceptions of NGOs on their impact on Poverty Reduction and Development in Tanzania

Desp�teallthebarr�ers,mostNGOsfeltthatthe�rorgan�sat�onswerehav�ngalargelypos�t�ve�mpactonpol�cy.Theareaof�mpactmostfrequentlyc�tedwas�nputtothePovertyReduct�onStrateg�es(PRS)rev�ew,anat�onalconsultat�onprocess �n�t�atedbytheGOTaspartofthedevelopmentoftheNat�onalStrategyforGrowthandReduct�onofPoverty(NSGRPorMKUKUTAtouse�tsSwah�l�acronym).Part�c�pantsfeltthatmanyofthe�rrecommendat�onswere�ncorporated�ntothestrategy,espec�ally�nareasofd�sab�l�tyandgender.ItwasalsofeltthatthePRSrev�ewhadhelpedma�nstreamthefightaga�nstpoverty�ntogovernmentpol�cyandcreatedafreshconsc�ousness�nthecountrythat“poverty�snotnormalandcanbeerad�cated”.TheGOT�snowmore�ncl�nedtoseeNGOsaspartners�npovertyreduct�on,andtorecogn�zethevalueofpubl�c�nput.Afurtherpos�t�venote�sthatthePRSrev�ewpromotedacloserwork�ngrelat�onsh�pbetweenthegovernmentanddonors,andthatmanydonorsaretalk�ngof�mplement�ngMKUKUTApr�or�tyareas.

RespondentsalsofeltthatNGOshadcontr�butedtoseveralothercr�t�calareasofpol�cyandleg�slat�vechange,mostnotablygenderequ�ty,prevent�onofsexualoffences,andlandreform.Act�v�smaroundgender�ssues�nTanzan�awasseenaspart�cularlystrong,duetotheeffortsofseveralact�venetworksandcoal�t�ons,�nclud�ngTanzan�aMed�aWomen’sAssoc�at�on(TAMWA),Tanzan�aGenderNetwork�ngProgramme(TGNP),andFem�n�stAct�v�stsCoal�t�on(FEMACT).

WhereasNGOscons�deredthatprogresshadbeenmade�nadvanc�nglawsandpol�c�es,theynotedthat�mplementat�onrema�nsproblemat�c.Agapex�stedbetweenpol�cyandpract�ce.

Three-quarters of respondents gave ev�dence of pos�t�ve �mpacts on poverty reduct�on anddevelopmentresult�ngfromthe�rwork,butthe�mpactsc�tedwere,forthemostpart,local�zedandcannotbev�ewedassweep�ng�mprovements.Moreover,mostorgan�sat�onsassessedthe�r�mpactbaseduponobservat�onsandpercept�onsofchange,suchasobservat�onsof�mprovedl�vel�hoods,employment and standards of l�v�ng �n target commun�t�es. Less than one-fifth of respondentsemployed formal mon�tor�ng and evaluat�on procedures or external rev�ews to measure the�reffect�veness.

For a s�gn�f�cant proport�on of respondents a sense of d�scouragement was ev�dent at theoverwhelm�ng amount of work left to do to combat ever-�ncreas�ng levels of poverty.Theseorgan�sat�onsfeltthatfewactualchangescouldbemeasuredasyet.Reasonsg�venforthesenegat�vepercept�ons�ncludedtool�ttlet�metoseepos�t�veresults;alackoffinanc�alresources;theneedformoretra�nedandcompensatedstaff;andapol�t�calenv�ronmentthatwasnotconduc�vefornon-stateactors.Severalpart�c�pantsalsocr�t�c�zedthe“welfareapproachtoserv�ceprov�s�on”adoptedbysomeNGOsthatactedas�ftheywerethegovernment.

F�nally,�t�sw�delybel�evedthattheentangl�ngbureaucrac�esofbothdonorsandthegovernmentcr�ppleeffortstowarddevelopmentbydelay�ngdec�s�onsandtheallocat�onofresources.

Nevertheless, many of the successes are truly hearten�ng news for commun�t�es. Several NGOs�nIr�nga,MorogoroandK�l�manjaronotedthat �ncreas�nguseofcondomsandbehav�orchangefosteredthroughawarenessprogramshadreducedthe �nc�denceofHIV/AIDS �nfect�on �ntheseareas.Home-basedcareg�verswererece�v�ngmorecommun�tysupport.Progresswasbe�ngmadeaga�nstthepract�ceoffemalegen�talmut�lat�on(FGM),andtougherlawsaga�nstrape,domest�cv�olenceandotherformsofabuseofwomenandch�ldrenhadbeen�nst�tuted.Morech�ldrenhavebeenenabledtogotoschool,serv�cesforthed�sabledhave�ncreased,andmeasurestoprotecttheenv�ronmenthaveexpanded.

x�v

To�mprovethe�r�mpact,�nd�v�dualNGOsandnetworksrecogn�zedtheneedtoacttobu�ldsk�llsandcapac�tytoovercomethe�rownorgan�zat�onalweaknesses.Greatercollaborat�onandtrustmustalsobeestabl�shedbetweenNGOstofac�l�tatejo�ntlyfunded�n�t�at�vesandtoavo�d‘re-�nvent�ngthewheel’foreachproject.Un�t�ng�ncollect�veact�onw�llstrengthenoutcomes.Networkmechan�smsweresuggestedto�ntegrate�nformat�ongatheredby�nd�v�dualNGOsfromgrassrootscommun�t�espr�ortosubm�ss�ontothegovernment.Follow-upw�thGOTcouldsubsequentlytracktheresultsofadvocacy.Inth�sway,collect�vevo�ceswouldencouragethegovernmenttodel�veronpol�t�calprom�sesoffa�rness,povertyreduct�onandeconom�cgrowthforall.Acodeofeth�csappl�cabletoorgan�sat�onsatalllevelsfromnat�onalNGOstov�llage/commun�tybasedgroupsshouldalsobedevelopedtoremoveanyh�ntofcorrupt�onorm�smanagementsothatthecred�b�l�tyofc�v�lsoc�ety�sstrengthenedandma�nta�ned.

Throughoutthestudy,NGOspresentedw�thded�cat�onands�ncer�ty,andexpressedanunamb�guousdes�refortruepartnersh�pw�ththegovernmentanddonoragenc�es.Respondentspo�ntedoutthatwh�legovernmentanddonorsmayhavethefunds,NGOshavetheon-the-groundexper�enceandexpert�seatlocallevels.Sobywork�ngtogetherasrealpartners–by�nclud�ngNGOs�ntheconcept�onandplann�ngstages, reduc�ngbureaucracy,andcons�der�ngNGOpr�or�t�es rather thand�ctatedagendas–muchmorecouldbeaccompl�shedtowardthecommongoalsofreduc�ngpovertyandfurther�ngdevelopment�nTanzan�a.

1

1. iNTRODuCTiON

1.1 The Emergence of CSOs and NGOs in Tanzania

Respond�ngtoaser�esofeconom�cshocks,Tanzan�as�gnedagreementsw�ththeWorldBankandtheInternat�onalMonetaryFundtoadoptstructuraladjustmentprogrammes�nthe1980sandearly1990s.Cond�t�onsoftheseagreements�ncludedcontrolofmoneysupply,devaluat�onofcurrency,andreduct�onofgovernmentexpend�turesforsoc�alserv�cesamongothersweep�ngchanges.Asaresult,theroleforc�v�lsoc�ety�ndevelopmentandserv�cedel�veryexpandeddramat�callyandthenumberofreg�steredNGOs�nTanzan�ashotupfromonlyseventeen�n1978to813organ�sat�onsby19942.Subsequenttransformat�ons�ndonorfund�ngstrateg�esdur�ngthelate1990sencouragedfurthergrowthofthesector,asdonors�ncreas�nglybegantochannela�dfundsthrough�nternat�onalandlocallybasedNGOs,wh�chwerecons�deredtobemoreeffic�ent,lesscorruptandtooperateclosertothepoorthangovernmentbureaucrac�es.NGOsbecamemoreact�ve�nfill�nggapsasthegovernmentretreatedfrom�tsfront-l�neserv�ceroleduetoseverebudgetaryrestr�ct�ons.Aspeoplereal�zedthew�ll�ngnessofdonorstog�ved�rectsupporttoNGOsandcommun�ty-basedorgan�zat�ons(CBOs),thenumberoforgan�sat�onsexploded3.

Follow�nganextens�veprocessofstakeholders’consultat�onsbeg�nn�ng�n1996,theNGOPol�cyof2000wasformulatedtoestabl�shaleg�slat�veframeworktoallowNGOstooperateeffect�vely.Thepol�cysteer�ngcomm�ttee(madeupofrepresentat�vesofacadem�a;government;local,nat�onaland�nternat�onalNGOS;commun�ty-basedorgan�sat�onsandrel�g�ous�nst�tut�ons)soughttoaddressconfus�on �n NGO reg�strat�on and the confl�ct�ng defin�t�ons of an NGO. It also recogn�zed thatnumerousconfl�ct�nglawsfacedanygroupseek�ngtoformanNGO.

Thepol�cyest�matedthat2,000localand�nternat�onalNGOswereoperat�onal�nTanzan�a,butotherstud�eshavefoundthatmanyorgan�sat�onspract�ceonapart-t�mebas�s,ex�st�nnameandproposalonly,orwork �navery l�m�tedcapac�ty4.Desp�te represent�ngacr�t�caladvance �ngovernment,donorandNGOrelat�ons,manyprov�s�onsoftheNGOPol�cyandtheTanzan�aNon-GovernmentalOrgan�zat�onsActof2002rema�nunclearandvagueandarecurrentlyundergo�ngalengthyprocessofrev�s�on5.

1.2 The Environment Today

Rev�ewofrelevantl�teraturealso�nd�catesthatgovernment/NGOrelat�onsw�threspecttopovertyreduct�onanddevelopmentrema�nacomplexandcontent�ous�ssue.Forexample,therecentNGOStatementon the Jo�ntHealthSectorRev�ew (2005) �nTanzan�apo�nted to“s�gn�ficantwar�nessamongactors�nhealth,�nclud�ngbetweengovernmentandNGOs”andthatatbothd�str�ctandnat�onallevels,“susp�c�onhamperscollect�veact�onto�mprovehealthstatus.”

Moreover,manydonorsarere-assess�ngwhetherfund�ngshouldgotoNGOsorbered�rectedtothegovernmenttoenabletheStatetocreatethecond�t�onsforthedevelopmentofanautonomousc�v�lsoc�ety.Inadd�t�on,Tanzan�ahasrecently�ntroduced�ndependentevaluat�onofant�-povertyprogrammesforbothdonorsandthegovernment.Indeed,developmenta�dfromdonors�snow�ncreas�nglybe�ngdel�veredd�rectlytonat�onalbudgets.

2K�ondo,1993:166;PMO,1996:13Lange,etal.,20004M�chael,2004:74;Mercer,2003:7545S�mon,2002

2

InJanuary2006,Br�ta�nagreedagrantofUS$542.5m�ll�ongovernment-to-governmentsupporttoTanzan�aoverthenextthreeyearsfor�tspovertyreduct�onprogram,pr�mar�lyforwater,healthandeducat�onprojects.

Debatealsoex�stsastowhethersomeNGOs,�nordertosecureresources,w�llfollowtheagendassetby�nternat�onalpartnersratherthanpursueprogrammesdeveloped�nresponsetoneeds�dent�fiedlocally.G�venthe�rrel�anceonfore�gnfund�ng,evenso-calledmembersh�porgan�sat�onsmaybemoreaccountabletotheseexternalfund�ngsourcesthantothe�rownconst�tuenc�es6.

Acknowledg�ng the �mportance of these �ssues, Research on Poverty Allev�at�on (REPOA), �ncollaborat�onw�thDubl�nC�tyUn�vers�ty,conductedacasestudytoexploretherolesand�mpactsofTanzan�anNGOsonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment,andtoexam�netherelat�onsh�psofNGOsw�thdonorsandw�ththegovernment.ThestudyseekstoassesstowhatextentNGOsarefreetooperateandcontr�buteeffect�velytopol�cydevelopment�nTanzan�a.Throughaselect�onofrespondents’quotes,thestudya�mstopresentlocalv�ewpo�ntsonthesecr�t�cal�ssuesandtoreflecttheun�quesoc�alandpol�t�calcontextofTanzan�anc�v�lsoc�ety.

6Igoe,2003;Reuben,2002;Sh�vj�,2004;Gu�j�tandShah,1998

3

2. METhODOLOGy

2.1 NGO Mapping Exercise

AnNGOmapp�ngexerc�sewascompletedtodevelopadatabaseofthoseNGOspr�mar�lywork�ng�ntheareasofsoc�alserv�cedel�very,povertyreduct�on,developmentandresearch.Ava�lablesourcesoforgan�sat�onal�nformat�on�ncludedtheD�rectoryofTanzan�aNGOs(2000),togetherw�thd�rector�es,workshopl�stsandmembersh�precordsfrom�nd�v�dualNGOs,networksandumbrellaorgan�sat�ons,donorsandfund�ngagenc�es,andgovernmentdepartments.

Theexerc�sey�eldedan�n�t�aldatabaseofover1,500organ�zat�onslocated�n23ofTanzan�a’s26reg�ons.W�ththeexcept�onofcurrentworkshopl�sts,manyofthe�n�t�alsourceswereobsoletew�thl�stedorgan�sat�onsunabletobecontacted.Thedatabasewascleanedandreorgan�zed.Organ�sat�onsthatd�dnotfitstudycr�ter�awereremovedtoy�eldadatabaseofabout700localandnat�onalNGOs.Internat�onalNGOswerenotel�g�ble.Otherc�v�lsoc�etyent�t�es,suchastradeun�ons,pol�t�calpart�es,cooperat�vesandmed�agroups,werealsoouts�dethescopeofthecurrentstudy.Thedatabasewasfurtherrefinedandupdatedasthestudyadvancedandnew�nformat�onbecameava�lable.

2.2 Sampling Frame

An�n�t�alsampleof100organ�sat�onsfor�nterv�ewwasdrawnfromthedatabase.Thesamplewasselectedto�nclude:

NGOsw�threlat�velygoodcapac�tyorgan�sedatanat�onallevelorw�thact�v�t�esfocusedongovernmentm�n�str�esatanat�onallevel;LessdevelopedNGOsfundedbyexternaldonors;andNGOsorgan�sedonlyatalocallevelthathadnod�rectfinanc�all�nkw�thfore�gnorgan�sat�onsorgovernments,�.e.,NGOsact�vely�nvolved�nfundra�s�ng,orfundedbymembersand/or�nd�v�duals.

Thesamplealsosoughtrepresentat�onofbothruralandurbanNGOs,aswellasNGOsfromacrossd�fferentreg�onsofthecountry.

2.3 Data Collection

Representat�vesfrom91organ�sat�onswere�nterv�ewed.REPOAresearchersadm�n�steredasurveyquest�onna�reto81organ�sat�ons�ntworoundsv�astructured�nterv�ewswhereposs�ble.Thefirstroundofthesurveywasconducteddur�ngFebruary-March2005,w�ththesecondroundheld�nJuly-Augustthatyear.In-depth�nterv�ewswerethenconductedbytheREPOAleadresearcherw�thafurther10NGOsbased�nDaresSalaamandArusha.Asecond�nstrument(�nterv�ewgu�de)wasdevelopedtoexam�nemorecloselyselectedtop�csand�ssuesra�sed�nthelargersurvey.

�)

��)���)

4

5

3. FiNDiNGS

3.1 Profile of the 81 NGOs that Completed the Survey Questionnaire

3.1.1 Location of Headquarters

Rural:57%;Urban:43%.

3.1.2 Scope of work

Nat�onal:53%;Localcommun�tylevel:47%.

Of note, 70% of rural NGOs were local �n scope whereas 83% of urban NGOs were nat�onal �nscope

3.1.3 Membership

A total of 68 NGOs (84%) l�sted membersh�ps rang�ng w�dely from s�x �nd�v�duals to 15,000members.

Membersh�pfortheseorgan�sat�onstotaledapprox�mately30,000Tanzan�ans.

The rema�n�ng 13 NGOs were not membersh�p organ�sat�ons but reg�stered as trusteesh�ps,compan�es,soc�et�es,networksorconsort�a.

3.1.4 Registration

Themed�anyearofreg�strat�onwasm�d1997,foramed�anageofapprox�mately8years.

TheoldestNGOsurveyedwasreg�stered�n1965.Themostrecentreg�strat�onwas�n2004.

Onlyabout26%ofpart�c�pat�ngNGOswere reg�stered �n the28yearsbetween1965and1993.However, an add�t�onal 53% reg�stered �n the s�x subsequent years, from 1994 through 2000�nclus�ve.

3.1.5 Regional Distribution

The headquarters of surveyed NGOs were located �n e�ght of the 26 reg�ons ofTanzan�a.Thed�str�but�onofNGOsacrossthecountry�sh�ghlyskewedtowardDaresSalaamReg�on,thefunct�onalcap�talandpol�t�calandeconom�ccentreof thecountry.Therefore, sampl�ngwasperformedtoensurerepresentat�onofup-countryreg�ons.Thefinalsample�ncluded59%ofNGOsfromup-countryreg�ons,41%fromDaresSalaamReg�on.

6

table.1:.distribution.of.Participating.ngos.by.region

region number %

DaresSalaam 33 41

Arusha 13 16

Ir�nga 11 14

K�l�manjaro 7 9

Morogoro 6 7

Mwanza 5 6

Kagera 4 5

Coast 2 2

TOTAL 81 100

3.1.6 Funding/Donors

Donorsfunded90%oftheNGOssurveyed.Atotalofabout170donororgan�sat�onswerement�oned.Agenc�esment�onedmostoftenwereUNDP,SIDA,DFID(UK),OxfamIreland,Troca�re,OxfamGB,FINNIDA,NORAD,FordFoundat�onandCIDA.

The rema�n�ng 10% are self-support�ng, through consultanc�es, funded by the�r membersh�p or�nd�v�duals.

3.1.7 Network Affiliations

Respondentsment�onedover160d�fferentnat�onal,localand�nternat�onalnetworkorgan�sat�onsandconsort�a.Thosement�onedmostoftenwerePol�cyForum(formerlyNGOPol�cyForum),Tanzan�aNGONetwork(TANGO),Tanzan�aGenderNetwork�ngProgramme(TGNP),Fem�n�sts’Act�v�stCoal�t�on(FEMACT),andTanzan�aCoal�t�onforDebtandDevelopment.

3.2 Profile of the 10 NGOs that Participated in the in-depth interviews

Interv�eweeswereselectedbasedonthreecr�ter�a:

thattheorgan�zat�onswerelocalornat�onal,

possessedrelat�velyh�ghcapac�ty,and

wereorgan�sedandoperatedbyTanzan�ans.

S�xNGOsandfournetworkswerechosenfor�n-depth�nterv�ews.Threeorgan�sat�onswerebased�nArusha;sevenwerelocated�nDaresSalaam.Themed�anyearofreg�strat�onwas1994,foramed�anageofelevenyears.

3.3 Focus of work of Participating NGOs by Sector

Theoperat�onsofapprox�mately70%oforgan�sat�onssurveyedmaybecategor�zed�ntofourmajorsectorsofdevelopment:

soc�al/econom�cdevelopment(25%),

healthandHIV/AIDS(23%),

•

•

•

•

•

7

womenandch�ldren’sdevelopment(15%),and

youthdevelopment(7%).

Organ�sat�onswereclass�fiedaccord�ngtothepr�nc�palfocusofthe�rwork,astheact�v�t�esofmanyorgan�sat�onsd�dnoteas�lyfit�ntoas�nglecategory.Forexample,�mprovements�nhealthandHIV/AIDSprevalencearecr�t�calfactorsaffect�ngallareasofdevelopment,andv�ceversa.

Part�c�pantsfor�n-depth�nterv�ewsweres�m�larly�nvolved�nabroadrangeofsectors�nclud�ngsoc�alandeconom�cdevelopment,healthandHIV/AIDS,legalreform,governance,educat�on,humanr�ghts,youth,gender,naturalresourcesandtheenv�ronment,susta�nablefarm�ngandpastoral�str�ghts.

3.4 Nature of work of the Participating NGOs

Surveyed NGOs were asked to descr�be the nature of the�r work w�th respect to the follow�ngcategor�es: serv�ce prov�s�on, advocacy, research or any comb�nat�on thereof.‘Serv�ce prov�s�onandadvocacy’wasthemostcommonresponse(47%ofNGOs).Afurther16%c�ted‘advocacyandresearch’,and11%werefocusedsolelyonserv�ceprov�s�on.Intotal,theworkof68%ofsurveyedNGOs�ncludedadvocacy,wh�le62%were�nvolved�nserv�ceprov�s�on.Lastly,21%oftheNGOswereengaged�nsomelevelofresearch.

table.2:.how.surveyed.ngos.characterize.their.work

nature.of.work %.of.ngos

M�xtureofserv�ceprov�s�onandadvocacy 47

M�xtureofadvocacyandresearch 16

Other 16

Mostlyserv�ceprov�s�on 11

Mostlyadvocacy 5

M�xtureofserv�ceprov�s�onandresearch 4

Mostlyresearch 1

TOTAL 100

Thetypesofserv�cesprov�dedwereextremelyd�verse,�nclud�ng(�nnopart�cularorder):

Legala�dandcounsel�ngserv�ces

Water,agr�culturalandenv�ronmentalconsultancy

Capac�tybu�ld�ngandtra�n�ngforNGOsandcommun�ty-basedorgan�sat�ons

Cred�tandsk�llsbu�ld�ngforsmallbus�nessenterpr�ses

Prov�s�onofschoolfeesandconstruct�onofeducat�onal�nfrastructure

Healthserv�ces,�nclud�nghome-basedcareandrehab�l�tat�on

HIV/AIDSprevent�oneducat�onand�nformat�on

Supportforthed�sabled,w�dows,streetch�ldrenand/ororphans

Incomegenerat�onprojects

Th�rty-fivepercentofNGOshadexper�encednochange�nthe�rtypeofworks�nceestabl�shment.However,wh�lereta�n�ngthe�ror�g�nalpurpose/m�ss�on,60%ofthosesurveyedhadaddedotherroles

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

8

�nresponsetoevolv�ngneedsw�th�nthe�rtargetedcommun�t�es.Nonement�onedthatth�strendwasrespons�vetodonors’a�dagendas.Forexample,awellestabl�shedNGOwork�ngonHIV/AIDS�ssues�narurald�str�ctremarkedthatcommerc�alsexworkersweretheor�g�naltargetgroup,butth�sexpandedto�ncludeorphansandout-of-schoolyouth.Commun�tyoutreachworkonlegala�dandhumanr�ghtswerealsoadded.

3.4.1 The Evolving Nature of the Work of an NGO

“It started with 15 [disabled children] under a mango . . . then it increased to the veranda, to the hall, and eventually to these buildings. We’ve served 1,750 people since 1990 and have added a vocational training and income generating center, animal husbandry and public awareness. Now we’re trying to establish an educational health center for those too ill to travel the long distance to the hospital.”

3.5 NGOs’ Perceptions of the Meaning of Advocacy

Theworkof68%ofNGOs�ncludedadvocacy,and82%ofthosesurveyedc�tedthatthe�rworkonadvocacyhad�ncreased�n�mportance.Forhalfoftherespondentsengaged�nadvocacy,the�rpr�marytargetsweretheTanzan�angovernment(var�ouslevels),donors,commun�t�es,orthegeneralpubl�c.About25%ofNGOstargetedonlythegovernment.Justoveronepercentc�ted�nternat�onaldonorsastheonlyfocusofthe�radvocacyefforts,and12%d�dnotengage�nadvocacy.WhenurbanbasedandruralbasedNGOsarecompared,urbanlocalesshowedsl�ghtlyh�gherpart�c�pat�on�nadvocacyandresearch,whereasruralorgan�sat�ons�nd�catedh�gher�nvolvement�nserv�ceprov�s�on.

How‘advocacy’�sdefinedfromoneorgan�sat�ontoanothermayvaryw�delydepend�ngonthe�ract�v�t�es.Forexample,advocacy,�fd�rectedtowarddonors,m�ghtmeanpromot�ng�deasforaprojecttosecureresources.Wh�le,advocacyd�rectedtowardalocalcommun�ty,m�ghtenta�ld�ssem�nat�ng�nformat�on,ra�s�ngawareness,orbu�ld�ngcapac�ty.

Datafromthesurveys�nd�catethatadvocacywasunderstoodd�fferentlyby�nd�v�dualNGOs.Onepr�marythemeemphas�zedadvocacyas‘creat�ngawareness’or‘sens�t�z�ng’aroundag�ven �ssue.Othermean�ngs�ncluded‘pressur�z�ng’governmentpol�cymakersor‘organ�s�ngforact�on’tobr�ngaboutchangetosolveaproblem.Dur�ngthe�n-depth�nterv�ews,thethemesmostoftenc�tedwere‘speak�ngfor’or‘onbehalfofothers’(thed�sadvantaged,marg�nal�zedorvo�celess),or‘�nform�ngand�nfluenc�ngforchange’.

Threadedthroughallresponses,the�deaofbr�ng�ngvo�cesfromthegrassrootsorgeneralpubl�ctopart�c�pate �npol�cy formulat�onandtodemandchangepreva�led.However, �twasalsoclearthatanumberofrespondentswerenotcerta�nofthemean�ngofadvocacy.Forexample,certa�nrespondentsdescr�bedthe�radvocacyworkas‘prov�d�ngcred�t’,‘tra�n�ng�nbus�nessentrepreneursh�p’,or,s�mply,as‘advocat�ng’.

3.5.1 The Varying Perceptions of Advocacy

“Advocacy is promoting a certain idea that brings development or meets the rights of the community or individual.”

“Generating shared understanding of key issues among stakeholders and advocating for change in the interests of the poor.”

“Change from an unwanted situation to the ideal one.”

“Efforts toward making changes, creating an enabling environment for change, and

9

empowering the community to take action.”

“Voice up and pressurize; inform people on issues and call them to action.”

“Advocacy is policy engagement, from the grassroots up, and being at the table, part of the process. It is also activism, mobilizing grassroots and public to demand change, and have the capacity to debate.”

Acompl�cat�ngfactorwasthepercept�onthatdonorstendtoprov�demorefund�ngforadvocacyandpol�cy�ssues,wh�ch,�nturn,may�nfluenceNGOsto�ncreaseadvocacyact�v�t�esanddecreaseserv�cedel�very.Th�sv�ewwasclearlystatedbyonerespondent:

“We do very little work on poverty alleviation and development because of funding. Donors are not very interested in poverty alleviation – they’re more interested in advocacy and lobbying for policy changes and law reforms.”

However,mostNGOsma�nta�nedthatthegrowth�nadvocacywasplanned.Indeed,the�ncreas�ng�mportanceof‘advocacy’�ntheworkofTanzan�a’sNGOsmaybearesponsetoenhancedlevelsofact�v�smandnetwork�ngbysomeofthestrongercoal�t�ons,aswellasapercept�onof�ncreasedopennessbytheGovernmentforcontr�but�onsfromc�v�lsoc�etydur�ngtherev�ewofthePovertyReduct�onStrateg�es(PRSs)�n2004-05.Nevertheless,�npursu�toffinanc�alsupportforthe�rprojects,andw�ththe�ncreas�ng�nterconnect�onofc�v�lsoc�etyworkasawholethroughnetworks,�tappearsthat many NGOs have adopted the terms and‘sh�ft�ng pr�or�t�es’ of donors.Therefore, the data�nd�cat�ngcerta�nlevelsofadvocacyworkmustbev�ewedw�thcaut�on.

Advocacy efforts c�ted by part�c�pat�ng NGOs �ncluded lobby�ng and act�v�sm �n the follow�ngareas:

Promot�onoflocalgovernment�nvolvement�nHIV/AIDS�ssues

Ch�ldlabour,sexualabuse,genderequ�ty,landr�ghts,andnaturalresources

Educat�onandhealth,�nclud�ngmaternalhealthandr�ghtsofthepoor

Youthbehav�orchangetra�n�ngandeducat�on

Env�ronmentalconservat�on

Ant�-FGMandHIV/AIDSawarenessandeducat�on

C�v�ceducat�ontohelpc�t�zenstotakeact�onandholdgovernmentaccountable

Pol�cyandlegalreformstorecogn�zeandsupportd�sabledpeople

Allocat�onofspaceforsmalltraders

Povertyreduct�onthrougheconom�candsoc�aljust�ce

Governance,democracy,peaceandsecur�ty(localandreg�onalconfl�ct�ssues)

3.6 NGOs work in Poverty Reduction and Development

Over80%ofsurveyedNGOscons�deredthatalloralmostallofthe�rworkwascloselyal�gnedtopovertyreduct�oneffortsorsoc�oeconom�cdevelopment.About18%spenthalfofthe�rt�meorlessontheseareasandasmallfract�ondonotwork�nthesefields.

Issuesofaccesstohealthserv�ces,land,water,educat�onandemploymentweregenerallyagreedtobepoverty�ssues,s�ncethepoorareoftend�senfranch�sedfromthesebas�cresources.S�m�larly,development�spursuedbyrespondentNGOsthroughamult�tudeofavenues�nclud�ngprov�s�onofpr�maryhealthcare,protect�onofenv�ronmentalresources,cred�t/loansand�ncomegenerat�onprojects,andeducat�onandtra�n�ngonabroadspectrumoftop�cs.OneNGO’sremarks�llustratedthe

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

10

�mmed�ateconnect�onofthe�rworkonHIV/AIDsw�thpovertyreduct�onanddevelopmentefforts:

“We spend all of our time devoted to poverty alleviation and development, because HIV/AIDS is surrounded by poverty.”

3.7 The Relationship of NGOs with Donors

3.7.1 Level of Support from Donors

Over90%oforgan�sat�onssurveyedweredonorfunded,andthree-fifthsofrespondentsrece�vedfund�ngfor60to100%ofthe�ract�v�t�es.

Fund�ngfromdonorscoveredasmalleroverallpercentageofruralNGOs’act�v�t�es.Atotalof55%ofruralorgan�sat�onshadrece�vedfinanc�alass�stanceforbetween60and100%ofthe�rwork;whereas68%ofurbanNGOsrece�vedthatleveloffund�ng.

Themajor�tyofdonor-fundedNGOsrece�vedacomb�nat�onoffinanc�alandtechn�calsupport.

Onlyal�ttlelessthanseven%oftheNGOssurveyedrece�vednoouts�defund�ngfromdonors.Mostoftheseoperateoncontr�but�onsfrommembersand�nd�v�duals,oron�ncomefromconsultanc�es.

3.7.2 Communication with Donors

MostNGOs(65%)commun�catedw�thdevelopmentpartnersfrequentlyv�aphoneand/orema�l,wh�leanother15%metw�thdonorsregularly.About4%c�tednod�rectcontact.

3.7.3 Differences in NGOs’ Relationships with International NGOs and with Official Donors

Over60%ofNGOsd�dnothaveany relat�onsh�pw�thoffic�aldonors.For the rema�n�ng40%ofNGOsthatd�d�nteractw�thboth�nternat�onalNGOsandoffic�aldonors,56%c�tedd�fferences�nthe�rrelat�onsh�psw�ththesetwodonorgroups,wh�le44%foundnod�fference�nthe�r�nteract�ons.F�nd�ngs�nd�catethatthepercept�onsof�nternat�onalNGOdonorsarelargelypos�t�ve,wh�lethepercept�onsw�threspecttooffic�aldonorsaremoreproblemat�c.SelectedcommentsfromNGOsonth�stop�carel�stedbelow.

international.ngos

“More accessible.”

“More concerned, help to build our capacity and show us where to improve when necessary.”

“Careful on accountability.”

“Often do not respond. Waited for 9 months for response to one proposal.”

“Relationship is more informal.”

“We are closer to NGOs than to government – they do follow-up and build capacity.”

“ We prefer to be funded by NGOs with a culture of really reaching out to poor communities.”

“Even if not providing funds, they focus more on collaboration in common interests.”

11

official.donors

“Not open to local NGOs.”

“Official donors build our capacity to manage our programme more than northern NGOs, who do not follow up on the money they give us.”

“Careless with finances and follow-up.”

“More strategic engagement – where we feel our objectives could be advanced.”

“Too many strings attached – “Maybe the spirit of NGOs is being killed by funding from the non-NGO world.”

“Focused, they respond, we always get feedback.”

“Not interested in partnership; just give the money.”

“Elaborate procedures and rules, rigid, rigorous, cumbersome & demanding, difficult to qualify for proposals.”

However, �t was noted that percept�ons of the same donor by two organ�zat�ons can be starklyd�fferentas�llustratedbythefollow�ngresponses

“One donor (USAID) is very inflexible and demanding on implementation and reporting, especially on finances.”

“USAID is not that difficult – agree on a budget and get down to activities – also flexible, generous, but pressure to show results. They give money, you do it, but USAID comes to the kitchen to check on the cooking.”

3.7.4 Funding Strategies and Project Priorities

Theten�ndepth�nterv�ewswereusedtofurtherexplorethepercept�onsofNGOsofthe�rrelat�onsh�pw�thdonors.AskedwhetherNGOs�ngeneralaredo�ngprojectstheywanttodoand/orthattheybel�eve�n,responseswerem�xedandtendedtobecaut�ousornegat�ve.Onerespondentremarkedpos�t�velythatthe�rdonor(an�nternat�onalNGO)prov�dedfund�ngfromtheearlyphasesofresearchthrough�mplementat�onofprojectsandsupportedthe�rorgan�sat�onto�mprove.However,halfoftheexplanat�ons �nd�catedthatdonors’pr�or�t�eswereparamount,exempl�fiedbythestatementthatc�v�lsoc�etyorgan�zat�ons’(CSOs’)“handsaret�ed”when�tcomestoprojectstheywouldl�ketopursue.Thefollow�ngquotesattesttopercept�onsthatdonors’agendasaredom�nant.

“The mechanism in which CSOs and donors operate does not give CSOs voice to decide, but gives donors the power to prescribe.”

“In most cases, donors invite CSOs to present their interests in certain [donor] priority areas.”

“CSOs respond to what donors are saying, not their own agendas.”

Askedwhetherdonors’pr�or�t�eshadad�rect �mpactonthepr�or�t�esofthe�rownorgan�sat�onsresponseswereequallyspl�t.Respondentsacknowledgedd�fferences�nagendas,thatmostdonorshavethe�rowncountrypol�c�es.Onerespondentsa�d thath�sorgan�sat�onattempts to res�stasmuchasposs�bleandlooksfordonorsw�ththesamebroadpr�or�t�es.AnotherNGOthatprov�desHIV/AIDSprevent�oneducat�onforyouthhadrece�vedmoneyfromtheUSGovernmentPEPFARprogram.S�nceth�s�n�t�at�veemphas�zesabst�nenceandfa�thfulness,theorgan�sat�onwasrequ�redtoceasepromot�ngcondomsastheyhaddonebefore.However,the�nterv�eweeremarkedthat“we

12

can always implement areas when we have the resources,”�nd�cat�ngthatth�swasonlyatemporarysetback.

Moreover,whenasked�fthe�rorgan�sat�onshadeverchangedthefocusofaproposalforfund�ngafterd�scover�ngthatadonor’spr�or�tyd�fferedfromthe�rown,orhadsoughtotherfund�ngsourceswhenapotent�aldonorwasnot�nterested�nthefocusofaproject,responsestothesetwoquest�onsappeared�ncons�stent.Fourfifthsofrespondentsanswered‘yes’tothefirstquest�on;alltenpart�c�pantsanswered‘yes’tothesecond.

Nevertheless,someorgan�sat�onsmayhaveappl�edbothtact�cs.Onedonorsa�dthatwhenadonorwantedto fundaproject �nad�fferentareaof thecountry thanthatselectedbytheNGO, theyrefusedthegrantbutult�matelyrece�vedmoneyfromad�fferentdonor.Toavo�dhav�ngtofollowdonors’agendas,oneorgan�sat�onwastry�ngtodevelop‘�nternal’fund�ngsourcesfrom�nd�v�dualswhosupportthe�rwork.

3.7.5 NGOs’ Perceptions on the Donor/Government Relationship

A major�ty of the ten respondents �n the �n-depth �nterv�ews v�ewed the donor/governmentrelat�onsh�pas‘uneven’andfavor�ngdonors.Onerespondentsa�d“Sometimes donors listen to the GOT”.Onlytworespondentsv�ewedtherelat�onsh�pasa‘complementarypartnersh�p’.However,theselectedquotesbelowbetter�llustrateNGOspercept�onsonth�scomplexanddynam�c�ssue.

“A relationship of diplomacy, give and take. Donors say they feel that the GOT is too strong, stubborn, but GOT is too tied to donors.”

“Donors need to answer to their taxpayers, so it’s a dilemma.”

“A complex issue – right now, good communication, but still Tanzania is highly dependent on donors, not good.”

“They are unequal; conditions come with the money.”

“Extremely good relationship relative to other countries. Some say they’re in bed together. They work very closely, but it’s a tenuous marriage because they’re also very wary of each other.”

3.7.6 Recommendations on How Donors Can Facilitate the Work of NGOs

Amajor�tyofNGOssa�dthatmorefinanc�alass�stancewasneededfromdonorstobetterfac�l�tatethe�rwork,espec�ally‘adequate’,‘flex�ble’and‘long-term’funds.Manyoftheserespondentsfranklypleadedforgreaterfinanc�alresources.Onerespondentremarked:“Bottom line – more money.”

However, other NGOs spec�fied the need for �ncreased fund�ng of core expenses (personnel,�nfrastructureandoperat�ngcosts)toenhance�nst�tut�onalsusta�nab�l�ty.Theseexpenseswereoftennotcoveredbydonorsthatsponsoredspec�ficprojects.One-th�rdof respondentsalsoc�tedtheneedforgreatertechn�calsupport(computertechnology,tra�n�ng�nformat�onexchange,capac�tybu�ld�ng)tofac�l�tatethe�rwork.Theneedforbroaderfund�ngmechan�sms�sh�ghl�ghted�nthefollow�ngquotes.

“We get money for a project, but most donors do not support personnel and running costs. That’s why some organizations ‘cheat’- find a way to divert funds to staff. Secretaries even sell reams of paper.”

“Village/grassroots organizations have nothing – no chairs, desks, paper. They lack basics.

13

So it’s hard to find partners to make it effective to go outside of Dar and fund in the rural areas.”

“We’re only funded for activities, which have very finite terms. We also need equipment.”

“Financial resources are not adequate – they want to support a program but do not provide enough to do it right. Time, communication and duration of implementation are important.”

Respondentsalsorecommendedthatdonorsfocusmoreonlocal/d�str�ctlevel�ssues,andthatpol�c�esandprojectsshouldbeformulated�npartnersh�p.Aftercr�t�calpr�or�t�esforTanzan�aare�dent�fied,�nd�v�dualNGOagendasandpr�or�t�esw�th�nthatl�stshouldbefundedbydonors.ItwasfeltthatNGOspossessgrassrootsknowledgeandw�shtosharethatexpert�se.NGOsalsosoughtfordonorstoreducethebureaucrat�ccomplex�t�esoftheappl�cat�onprocess,tooffercapac�tytra�n�ng�nthepreparat�onofproposals,andtod�splaygreateropennessaboutthe�ragendas.

One �nterest�ng recommendat�on was that donors should engage consult�ng firms to manageprojects,asDelo�tteTouchecurrentlyadm�n�sters theRap�dFund�ngEnvelope.Fundsshouldbeadvert�sedwhenava�lable.Concernwasalsovo�cedofthetrendtowards�ngle-channelfund�ngtotheGOTasth�s�ncreas�nglyd�rectscontroltothegovernmentandawayfromc�v�lsoc�ety.F�nally,oneyouthrepresentat�vearguedfordonorstosupportlocal�deasandadv�seddonorsto “leave aside as much as possible ‘best practices’, which are only blueprints to cut and paste, and become an imposition.”

3.8 The Roles of NGOs and their Relationship with the Government of Tanzania (GOT)

3.8.1 Level of Contact with the Government

AlmostallNGOssurveyed(94%)engagedd�rectlyw�ththeGOT.

Almosthalfoftheorgan�zat�ons�nteractatalllevels(nat�onal,reg�onal,d�str�ct,ward,v�llage),wh�lealmostone-th�rdoftheNGOsdosoonlyatthed�str�ctlevel.

Over10%�nteractpr�mar�lyat thenat�onal level,wh�leabout3%engageonlyatward levelandbelow.

Amajor�tyofNGOs(57%)�nteractw�thgovernmentoffic�alsd�rectly;only11%engagev�aanetworkalone.Therema�nderut�l�zesbothapproaches.

Morethan40%ofNGOswere�ntouchw�thoffic�alse�thermonthlyorquarterly,almost15%hadweeklycontact,andas�m�larproport�on(~15%)hadda�lycontact.However,almost30%sa�dthatthe�rcontactw�ththegovernmentwasonly�nresponsetospec�alevents.Overall,morethan60%ofNGOsdescr�bedthe�rlevelofcontactassat�sfactory.F�nd�ngs�nd�catethatruralgroupshadlessfrequentcontactw�ththegovernmentandmoreoftenc�tedmult�plebarr�erstoaccessthanurban-basedNGOs.

3.8.2 Perceptions on the Roles of NGOs and the Government

Dur�ngthe�n-depth�nterv�ews,respondentswereaskedtospec�fyd�fferencesbetweentherolesofthegovernmentandNGOs�npovertyallev�at�onanddevelopment.W�de-rang�ngl�stsofrespons�b�l�t�eswereattr�butedtobothsectors,butseveralcommonthemesemerged.

Pol�cy and leadersh�p were the pr�nc�pal roles attr�buted to the government together w�th the

14

respons�b�l�tytocreateanenv�ronmentconduc�vetoc�t�zenstopart�c�pate�nthemak�ngofpol�c�esandlaws.Onerespondentaddedthatthegovernment�srespons�bleformanag�ngpubl�cassetsandprov�d�ngpubl�cgoods(suchashealth,educat�on)toensuresoc�alprotect�on,peaceandsecur�ty.

Thekeyfunct�onsforNGOswere�nterpret�ng,mon�tor�ng/scrut�n�z�ngand�mplement�nggovernmentpol�c�es.NGOsshouldtranslatepol�c�esto�nformlocalcommun�t�es,andprov�deacondu�tfor�nputand�nformat�onfromthosecommun�t�estoreachthegovernment.NGOsalsoperce�vedastrongroleforc�v�lsoc�etytoformulatecreat�vepol�cyand�mplementat�onsolut�ons.

W�threspecttoserv�cedel�very,�.e.,�mplement�ngpol�c�es,themajor�tyofrespondents�nd�catedthatNGOsshouldass�sttofillgapswherethegovernmentdoesnot,orlackscapac�ty,toprov�deserv�ces.However,oneNGOarguedthats�ncedecentral�zat�on,theeconomy�slargely�nthehandsofouts�ders:

“CSOs are doing a good job trying to lobby for social sectors. [But] the large social sector is not sustainable – it will be donor dependent for a long time. Very few NGOs are helping people to cope with the economy. Though people think the GOT is running it, outsiders are. International financial institutions, donors and the GOT have created a role for the private sector, which employs only 16% of the population. Only 6% have bank accounts. NGOs should connect the people to the economy. During thirty years of centralized government, people were assured of employment after graduating from university; there was free education, a marketing monopoly – all gone now. The IMF should have helped the government to prepare people in advance of privatization of utilities.”

Alltenrespondentssa�dthatCSOsshouldscrut�n�zetheworkoftheState.Spec�ficentrypo�ntsforc�v�lsoc�etycentredontrack�ngbudgetsandpart�c�pat�ng�nthepubl�cexpend�turerev�ew(PER)process.Onerespondentremarked“NGOs should lobby to sit on committees [in partnership with GOT], and should get budgets and documents to review in advance, before they go to Parliament.” Therewasageneralsensethatgovernmentshouldbetransparent,butthatpeoplemustmon�torandprotectthe�rpubl�c�nvestment.Anothercommentedthat: “NGOs should be in the front line of analyzing policies and agreements of the government,”andshouldhelpbyprov�d�ng�nformat�onandalternat�vesolut�onstotheGOT.Ath�rdrespondentechoedth�s,argu�ngaga�nstNGOsbe�ng‘only’watchdogs,stat�ngthatorgan�sat�onsshouldapproachthegovernmentnotonlyw�thcr�t�c�smbutalsow�thproposedsolut�ons,andtheyfirstneedtoknowthe‘rulesofengagement’atvar�ousgovernmentallevels.

3.8.3 How Tanzanian NGOs Can Help Shape Government Policy

WhenaskedforwaysthatTanzan�anNGOscanhelpshapepol�cy,NGOsdescr�bedvar�ousformsofcollect�veact�onasthebestwaysto�nfluencegovernmentpol�cymakers.Network�ng,form�ngstrateg�call�ancesorcoal�t�ons,work�ngthroughumbrellaorgan�sat�ons,andmob�l�z�ngcollaborat�velyaroundcr�t�cal �ssueswerec�tedrepeatedlyasthemosteffect�veapproaches.Network�ngallowsNGOstoshare�nformat�on,sk�llsandexpert�seandtoeffic�entlymob�l�zeresources,wh�leenhanc�ngthecred�b�l�tyoftheorgan�zat�ons’agendathroughastrongcollect�vevo�ce.

Certa�nd�sadvantagesofnetworkswerealsoc�ted.Effect�venetworkstaket�metodevelopandmaybed�fficulttocoord�nate�fverylargenumbersofNGOsare�nvolved.Infact,desp�tethe�rs�gn�ficantadvantages,sevenoutoftenrespondents�nthe�n-depth�nterv�ewsagreedthatanetworkcouldbetoob�gortoopowerful.An�nd�v�dualNGOcanr�skbecom�ngovershadowedandcomprom�s�ng�tscoreconv�ct�ons,orbe“forced into a mold” asonerespondentremarked.

Respondentsalsoemphas�sed‘pol�cyl�teracy’,�.e.,forNGOstobethoroughlyfam�l�arw�ththe�ssues

15

aswellasthepol�cycontext,andtoengage�npol�cyformulat�onfromtheoutsetand�nat�melyfash�on.NGOsneededtodothe�r‘homework’�nadvanceand�dent�fyentrypo�ntsforc�v�lsoc�etypart�c�pat�on.Organ�sat�onsmustfirstlearnthegovernment’spos�t�ononan�ssue,andthenmakesurethatkeyoffic�alsattheproperlevelsknowthe�rpr�or�t�esthroughaclearlypresented,persuas�vepos�t�onpaper.Inshort,NGOsneedtobeorgan�sedandbe�nformed.Inturn,NGOswantedtheGOTtoseethemaspartners,andtosupport�mportantworkatthelocallevel.

Respondentsalsoment�onedus�ngthemed�aandseek�ngopportun�t�esforface-to-faceadvocacy.Onerespondentrecommendedemploy�nga“mix of methods – make noise in the streets to raise public debate.” “Speaking truth to power” asanotherremarked.

Onthenegat�ves�de,afewrespondentsfeltthatNGOswerenotun�ted,lackedexpert�se,andd�dnothavewellthoughtoutstrateg�es.IfNGOsd�dnotcomb�nethe�rvo�ces�nacommoncause,theywouldjustbe‘“shouting in the wind”.Afurtherandmoreser�ouswarn�ngwasthebel�efthatNGOsact�ngalonem�ghtr�skgovernmentretr�but�on.

3.8.4 Perceptions of NGOs on their Relationship with the Government

Part�c�pants�nthe�n-depth�nterv�ewswerealmostunan�mous:NGOrelat�onsw�ththeGovernmentofTanzan�ahave�mproveds�ncethe�rorgan�sat�onswereestabl�shed.Ev�dencec�tedforth�sassessment�ncluded�ncreasedrequestsbyGOTfor�nformat�on,greater�nvolvementofNGOs�npol�cyprocesses,andclosercommun�cat�onand�mprovedcred�b�l�tyw�ththegovernment.RespondentsfeltthattheGOTnowhasabetterunderstand�ngthatc�v�lsoc�etyhasaclearroletoplay�npol�cyformulat�on.

OneNGO’scred�b�l�tyw�ththeGOT�ncreasedwhentheycr�t�c�zedaWorldBankHIPCreportthathadusedout-datedfinanc�alrat�os,result�ng�nlessdebtrel�efforTanzan�a.Recalculat�onofthefiguresbytheorgan�sat�onresulted�nh�gherdebtrel�ef.Th�sNGO�snowafixture�nthePERprocessandpart�c�pates�nnegot�at�onsw�ththeWorldBankandIMF.

Only one respondent dev�ated from the overall good percept�ons of the relat�onsh�p w�th theGovernment,remark�ngthat�twasreallyd�fficulttosaywhether�t�sbetterorworse,acknowledg�ngthat�t�schang�ng,butmorecaut�ouslyassert�ngthatthereareamb�valences:

“GOT is beginning to understand us better, taking more interest in our work, seeing where we can be beneficial to them, what our strengths and weaknesses are. [But] some parts of GOT seek us out, and others fear us more. Some value our input; some exclude us.”

3.8.5 Perceptions of NGOs on Information Sharing by the Government

Interest�ngly,�nl�ghtofthegoodpercept�onsontheNGO/GOTrelat�onsh�pnotedabove,onlyfiveout of the ten �nterv�ewees bel�eved that the government freely shares �nformat�on w�th NGOs.Onepart�c�pantfeltthattheGOTwasmoreforthcom�ng,andthattheamountandfrequencyofgovernment�nteract�onandengagementw�thc�v�lsoc�etyhad�mproved.Th�sprogress�nd�catedthegrow�ngstrengthoftherelat�onsh�pandthe�ncreasedrecogn�t�onoftheroleofCSOsandthepr�vatesectoraspartners.However,nearlyhalfoftherespondentsexpresseddoubtontheextenttowh�chtheGOTtrulyshares�mportant�nformat�onas�llustratedbythequotesbelow:

“Maybe not 100%, we need to press [for more], it all depends on the person you interact with.”

“Though they share more [information] than before, there are still closed areas and topics, especially donor negotiations.”

16

“Yes, but we do not know to what extent other crucial information is being hidden. Do we only receive two per cent of it?”

3.8.6 Recommendations on How Government Can Facilitate the Work of NGOs

Respondentsrecommendedseveralwaysthatthegovernmentcouldbetterfac�l�tatetheworkofNGOs.Suggest�onscanbegroupedunderfourma�nthemes.Inorderof�mportance,thegovernmentshoulda�mto:

Foster a collaborat�ve sp�r�t w�th NGOs by creat�ng an enabl�ng env�ronment and�nst�tut�onal�s�ngmechan�smsforc�v�lsoc�etypart�c�pat�on�nTanzan�a;Prov�de fund�ng and/or resources to NGOs, �nclud�ng tra�n�ng, techn�cal ass�stance andcapac�tybu�ld�ng;Increaseaccessto�nformat�onthroughacomm�tmenttogreatertransparencyandopennessandtheestabl�shmentofclearchannelsofcommun�cat�on;and,Rev�setheNGOActto�mprove�tsoperat�on.

Comment�ngontheneedformorel�beralfund�ng,onepart�c�panth�ghl�ghtedthecommongoalofNGOsandthegovernment,thatbothsectors“serve the same people – the citizens of Tanzania, not NGOs”.S�m�larly,anotherrespondentsuggestedthatfund�ngass�stancetoNGOs“will just go back to the people who are the taxpayers”.However,onerespondentsharedanoppos�ngv�ewthatthefac�l�tat�onofNGOworkwasnot theroleofthegovernment.Lastly,as�mplerequestforrecogn�t�onofthe�rworkwasmadebyafewNGOs.Onepart�c�pantremarkedeloquentlyonachallengefrequentlyencounteredbystaffandvolunteersofanorgan�zat�on,that“sometimes an NGO is almost bankrupt, but surrounded by people in need”.

3.9 The impact of NGOs on Poverty Reduction and Development

About three-quarters of NGOs surveyed bel�eved that they have an‘�mportant/cons�derable’ or‘med�um’�mpactonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment�nTanzan�a,andmanyrespondentsreferredtothesuccessfulworkofotherh�gh-profileNGOs�natta�n�ng�mportantoutcomes.Th�sresponsemay�nd�cateas�gn�ficant�ncrease�nNGOnetwork�ng,butmayalsobe�nd�cat�veofther�s�ng�mpactoftheNGOsectorasawhole�nTanzan�a.However,mostorgan�sat�onsassessedthe�r�mpactbaseduponobservat�onsandpercept�onsofchange;onlyal�ttlelessthanonefifthofrespondentsemployedformalmon�tor�ngandevaluat�onproceduresorexternalrev�ewstomeasurethe�reffect�veness.Forexample,nearlyonequarterofNGOsassessedapos�t�ve�mpactbasedonthe�rpercept�onsof�mprovedl�vel�hoods,employmentandstandardofl�v�ng�ntargetcommun�t�es.

�)

��)

���)

�v)

17

table.3:.how.ngos.measure/Perceive.their.Positive.impact.on.Poverty.reduction.and.development.

types.of.measurements.and.Perceptions %.of.ngos

Percept�onsofh�gheremployment,�ncomesandstandardsofl�v�ng 24.1

Mon�tor�ngandEvaluat�on,suchasexternalevaluat�ons,basel�nesurveys,workplansw�th�nd�cators,�nformat�ongather�ngandfollow-upv�s�ts

19.4

Percept�onsof�ncreasedawareness,confidenceandbehav�ourchange,andgreaterpart�c�pat�on,network�ng,act�v�smandexerc�seofr�ghts(espec�allyforyouthandwomen)

13.9

Percept�onsof�mprovements�nhealthawarenessandoutcomes 10.2

Percept�onsofgreater�nteract�onw�thgovernment,andchanges�nlawsandpol�c�es 9.3

Percept�onsofpos�t�veenv�ronmental�mpactsandbetternaturalresourcesmanagement 8.3

Percept�onsof�mprovements�nattendanceandqual�tyofeducat�on 8.3

Otherpercept�ons:med�aattent�onforprograms,clampdownoncorrupt�on,�ncreaseddemandforserv�cesandexpandedcl�entbaseforNGOs

6.5

totAL 100

Notably,severalNGOs�nIr�nga,MorogoroandK�l�manjaroreg�onsfeltthe�nc�denceofHIV/AIDS�nfect�onwasdecl�n�ng�nthoseareasasaresultof �ncreasedcondomuseandbehav�orchangefosteredthroughawarenesstra�n�ng.Homebasedcareg�verswerealsorece�v�ngmorecommun�tysupport.Other�mportantexamplesc�tedwere�mprovedfoodsecur�ty;advances�ngenderequ�ty,�nclud�ngareduct�on�nthe�nc�denceoffemalegen�talmut�lat�on,andtougherlawsaga�nstv�olence,rapeandabuseofwomenandch�ldrenserv�ces;forestrecoverythroughtheuseofalternat�vefuelsratherthanfirewood;and�ncreasededucat�onandserv�cesford�sabledpeople.Theselectedquotesbelow�llustrateafewofthepos�t�ve�mpacts�nhealthandeducat�onc�tedbypart�c�pat�ngNGOs.

“If we look at the indicators, youth are now peer councilors who were once drug addicts; sex workers have built houses, are sending their children to school and taking other jobs, even volunteering.”

“There has been a change of policy as a result of our constructive engagement, e.g. removal of user fees in primary education in 2001, following our research… Also, networks have been founded that have enabled a collective voice in education.”

“Some children are enabled to go to school now through lobbying activities – especially poor and orphaned kids.”

“The Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP) has been revised to incorporate special needs education [for the disabled] and there is budgetary provision for that.”

Fortherema�n�ngquarterofrespondentswhoassessedthe�r�mpactas‘fair, poor or none’,asenseoffrustrat�onwasev�dent.Theyexpressedd�scouragementw�ththeoverwhelm�ngamountofworklefttodotocombatever-�ncreas�nglevelsofpoverty,andfeltthatfewactualchangescanbemeasuredasyet.Reasonsg�venforthe�rnegat�veassessments�ncluded:tool�ttlet�metoseepos�t�veresults;lackoffinanc�alresources;needformoretra�nedandcompensatedstaff;anda“lack of a conducive or encouraging political environment for non-state actors”.Twoquotestyp�fiedthesepercept�ons.

“There is so much need and so few resources. Poverty is intensifying, and the frequency of displacement and migration and food insecurity are forces working against our initiatives.

18

Incidences of real poverty are increasing.”

“Time has been short, not enough to evaluate impact, and our resources are not sufficient to make significant changes.”

Althoughthepos�t�ve�mpactsc�tedarevaluableandencourag�ng,the�n�t�at�vesare,forthemostpart,local�zedandcannotbecons�deredassweep�ngnat�onal�mprovements.However,NGOpercept�onsofexpanded�nteract�onw�ththegovernment,wh�chhasencouragedchanges�npol�c�esandlaws,canbecons�deredbroader�nscope.

3.10 The impact of NGOs on Government Policy

Allrespondentssurveyed,exceptone,feltthatNGOsweremak�ngan�mpact�nshap�nggovernmentpol�cy;two-th�rdsperce�veddefin�te�mpact,wh�leabout36%feltthatNGOshave‘someoral�ttle’�mpact.

3.10.1 Impact on the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)

Themostfrequentlyc�tedareaofpol�cy�mpactbyNGOswas�nputtothePovertyReduct�onStrateg�es(PRS)rev�ew,anat�onalconsultat�onprocess�n�t�atedbytheGOTaspartofthedevelopmentoftheNat�onalStrategyforGrowthandReduct�onofPoverty(NSGRP).TheNSGRPwasreleased�nJune2005and�sexpectedtolast5years,�.e.throughfiscalyears2005/06to2009/10.

It�scommonlyreferredtoby�tsSwah�l�acronym,MKUKUTA.Thestrategyfocusesonthreemajorclustersofpovertyreduct�onoutcomes:

growthandreduct�onof�ncomepoverty;�mprovementofqual�tyofl�feandsoc�alwell-be�ng,andgoodgovernanceandaccountab�l�ty.

ThePRSrev�ewstarteddur�ngPovertyPol�cyWeek(PPW)ofOctober2003andconcludedw�ththePPWofNovember2004.Therev�ewa�medtoact�velyengagestakeholdersfromallsectorsofTanzan�ansoc�ety–thegovernment,thec�t�zenry(bothpoorandnon-poor),c�v�lsoc�ety,commun�t�es,anddevelopmentpartners–toenhanceownersh�pandconfidence�nMKUKUTAandensure�tssuccessandsusta�nab�l�ty.

Part�c�pantsamongthe81NGOssurveyedfeltthatmanyofthe�rrecommendat�onswere�ncorporated�ntoMKUKUTA,espec�ally �nareassuchasd�sab�l�tyandgender.ManyNGOscontr�butedpapersonvar�oussectoralandgrassroots �ssues to theV�cePres�dent’sOffice, theofficerespons�ble fordevelop�ngMKUKUTA.NGOswerealsokeenly�nvolved�naser�esofconsultat�veworkshopsdur�ngthePRSrev�ew–amostencourag�ngs�gnforc�v�lsoc�etyasawhole.Amorespec�ficv�ctoryontheuseofalternat�veenergysourceswasc�tedbyonerespondent,whoremarkedthatnearlyallofthe�rorgan�sat�on’srecommendat�onswereadopted.

The�n-depth�nterv�ewsfurtherexam�nedthepercept�onsofNGOsonthe�r�nvolvementw�thPovertyReduct�onStrateg�es(PRSs)�ngeneralandMKUKUTAspec�fically.N�neoutoftenrespondentsfeltthatPRSprocesseshadbroughtchangetotherelat�onsh�pbetweenthegovernmentandc�v�lsoc�ety.SomerespondentsfeltthattheGOTnowv�ewsCSOsaspartners�npovertyreduct�onandrecogn�zesthevalueof�nputfromc�t�zens.The�ncreasedpart�c�pat�onofCSOs�nGOTprocesses�sproofofth�spos�t�vechange.Equally,theworkofc�v�lsoc�etywasperce�vedasafford�nggreaterleg�t�macytothegovernment’sprograms.Otherrespondentswerelessenthus�ast�c:

“Yes, the relationship between civil society and the GOT has changed but not substantially,

�)��)���)

19

though there is talk of inclusion and tolerance. The GOT listens a little. PRS is a reference document for the future.”

“PRS has forced the government to work with CSOs to get their input. Last year there was lots of interaction during the review, but it was not meaningful – just an exercise.”

Whenaskedwhatmajor�mpactsPRSshavehadonTanzan�a,responseswereoncemorespl�tbetweenhopefulnessandcyn�c�sm.Onthepos�t�ves�de,respondentsc�tedthecreat�onofmorepart�c�patorypartnersh�psbetweenstakeholders,andtheopen�ngof�nformat�onflowandconsultat�onbetweenCSOsandtheState.Onerespondentremarkedthattheseeffortshavecreatedafreshconsc�ousness�n the country that “poverty is not normal and can be eradicated”.The PRS process had helped toma�nstreamthefightaga�nstpoverty�ntogovernmentpol�cyandtod�rectGOTandc�v�lsoc�etyworktowardspr�or�tysector�ssues.Anothercommented:

“Yes, the GOT has focused around MKUKUTA, which is a major impact. That the government has reinvented itself to such an extent is unique to Tanzania, which may be why donors have such a good opinion of Tanzania. And for the future, the CCM manifesto has also organised itself around MKUKUTA.”

However,onerespondentremarkedthatdesp�tethese�mprovements,therehasbeenno�ncrease�nresourcesflow�ngtosoc�alserv�ces.Indeed,almosthalfoftherespondentsfelttheyhadnotseenanyclearresults.Onepart�c�pantexpressedthev�ewthatattemptshadbeenmadetoreducethenumberofparastatalorgan�sat�ons,butnotallpr�vat�sat�oneffortshadbeensuccessfulbecause“they were sold to people who are not doing anything for Tanzania – they take the money and go”. Anotherdescr�bedthePRSprocessasonly“a paper, politics and financial arrangements on who gets what, but not a tool for development”.

3.10.2 Ability of NGOs to Influence MKUKUTA in Pro-Poor Directions

E�ghtoutoftenrespondents�nthe�n-depth�nterv�ewsbel�evedthatNGOscould�nfluenceMKUKUTA�npro-poord�rect�ons.Severalpart�c�pantsobservedthatNGOshavelongexper�ence�nwork�ngcloselyw�thcommun�t�estoreducepoverty,andmanyorgan�sat�onshadalsoconductedpart�c�patoryresearchto�nformthe�rprojects.Incorporat�ngth�sknowledgeandexper�ence�ntoMKUKUTAshouldbeastra�ghtforwardprocessfortheGOT.Moreover,NGOsarenowpartofthePubl�cExpend�tureRev�ewwork�nggroupandthePovertyMon�tor�ngSystem(PMS)forMKUKUTA.NGOs�nTanzan�ahadlobb�edtopart�c�pate�nthesekeyfunct�ons,unl�kethes�tuat�on�nUgandawhereNGOsarenot�ncludedasact�vestakeholders.

However,one�nterv�eweecons�deredthatthe�nfluenceofNGOswasl�m�tedbecausetheGOThad�tsownpr�or�t�esandwouldnottaketheadv�ceofNGOs.Anotherrespondentfeltthatthe�nfluenceofNGOswasl�m�tedtosectoral/m�crostrateg�esbutd�dnot�mpactmacropol�c�es.

3.10.3 Perceptions of the Impact of PRS Processes on the Relationship between the GOT and Donors

Themajor�tyofpart�c�pants�nthe�n-depth�nterv�ewsbel�evedthatthe�ntroduct�onofPRSprocesseshad �mproved the relat�onsh�pbetweendonorsand thegovernment.Respondents felt that thegovernmentnowplansandpartnersw�thdonors,andthatmanydonorsarecomm�tt�ngtoMKUKUTApr�or�tyareas.There�salsogreatercollaborat�onontechn�calcomm�tteesaswellasjo�ntfund�ngofprogramsbygovernmentanddonors.However,anotherrespondentremarkedthatthere�s“more dependence on donors through basket funding, more fundamental decision-making [by donors] now,

20

and less autonomy for the GOT”. Lastly,oneNGOheldthat:

“The GOT has more money now and donors can claim that the GOT is implementing their policies. The relationship has very much undermined the credibility of the GOT, especially when a big share of the total budget comes from donors”.

3.10.4 Other Areas of NGO Impact on Government Policy

RespondentsfeltthatNGOshadcontr�butedtoseveralothercr�t�calareasofpol�cyandleg�slat�vechange,mostnotablygenderequ�ty,prevent�onofsexualoffences,andlandreform.Tanzan�aMed�aWomen’sAssoc�at�on(TAMWA),oneofthemost�nfluent�alCSOs�nTanzan�a,wasalead�ngadvocatefortheSexualOffensesSpec�alProv�s�onsAct1998(SOSPA).Indeed,thelaw�salsoreferredtoasthe“TAMWAAct”.TheActprov�desforstrongpenalt�esforrape,domest�cv�olence,andch�ldabuse.Underthenewlaw,femalegen�talmut�lat�onofg�rlsundertheageof18�sacr�me.Inadd�t�on,part�c�pantsc�tedTanzan�aGenderNetwork�ngProgramme(TGNP)asakeyorgan�sat�onma�nstream�nggender�ssues,suchastheGenderBudget In�t�at�ve.Lastly,theLandAct1999andV�llageLandAct1999prov�deacomprehens�veframeworkformanag�ngandadm�n�ster�ngland�nTanzan�a,and�ncludeprov�s�onstosecurewomen’sr�ghtstoacqu�ret�tleandreg�strat�onofland.

NGOshavealsobeenkeenly�nvolved�neducat�onalpol�cy,pastoral�sts’r�ghts,andenv�ronmentalprotect�on.Inadd�t�on,part�c�pantsc�tedcontr�but�onsbyNGOstotheestabl�shmentofanat�onalYouthCounc�l,andtoprogresstowardsadebtstrategyforTanzan�a.NGOshavealsosuccessfullylobb�edtheGOTtotakeupthe�ssueofamend�ngtheNGOAct.

3.11 Barriers faced by NGOs in influencing Government Policy

“Lackof�nterestbythegovernment�nthev�ewsofNGOs”wasthebarr�ermostfrequentlyfacedbysurveyedNGOs(21%)�n�nfluenc�nggovernmentpol�cy.Afurther16%compla�nedofpol�t�calandleg�slat�vebarr�ers,�nclud�nglackofaccesstokeyoffic�als.These‘leg�slat�ve’barr�erswerefelttoexcludenon-stateactorsfromthed�alogue.Thelackofpol�t�calplural�sm,transparency,anda‘levelplay�ngfield’werealsocons�deredtoactasconstra�ntstoeffect�veengagement�nthepol�cyprocess.However,onerespondentremarkedthats�ncesomeNGOsareprov�d�ngc�v�ceducat�onprogramstosens�t�zecommun�t�esthat“the public is now looking at the government with a keen eye”.

Ontheotherhand,oneNGOpo�ntedoutthattheGOTw�lll�stentosharp,cogentarguments.S�nceth�sNGOprov�des“usable”�nformat�ontothegovernment,�tfelt“freetocontacttheGOTanyt�me.”Thesamerespondent,however,adm�ttedthatadvocacytakesalongt�me,andthat�twashardtogettheGOTtol�sten:

“The level of contact we have [i.e. weekly] is not satisfactory because a fundamental shift in how policy is made in Tanzania is needed, so that it is not an exclusive group of donors and key policy makers who are determining everything. The environment needs to be opened, to be honest, transparent. It is now secretive, the rules of the game are cloaked, and even the cloaked rules are broken – a very inefficient process. Despite that, government and donors continue to say the process is open and that there is extensive national ownership. This is a fallacy”.

“There is some progress, but donors are so desperate to hold up Tanzania as a model of virtue they are unwilling to see the things that do not work. We have failed to sufficiently make sure the process has truly national ownership. My criticisms do not mean that we have not had any impact at all. Poverty Monitoring System is trying, but highly flawed. There is so much

21

pressure by donors on government to be [seen as] ‘perfect,’ there is no room for self-criticism and improvement. In the last five years, the role of NGOs has been successful – though not unilaterally – in opening up the political environment. But we need to do more to get more response.”

SomerespondentsfeltthatNGOslackedtheknowledgeorresourcestoart�culatethe�rv�s�onand�nfluencepol�cy.OthersfeltthatNGOsd�dnotunderstandhowtoavo�dconfront�ngthegovernmentasanadversary,wh�ch�scounterproduct�ve.Afurthersetofcr�t�c�sms�nd�catedthatsomeNGOsfocusedonserv�cedel�veryas�f theywereprov�d�ngtheserv�ces�nsteadofthegovernment.AnotherrespondentremarkedthatNGOswere,forthemostpart,concentrated�ntownsandma�nta�nedl�ttleorveryweakpresence�nthev�llages/d�str�cts.Transportand�nfrastructurewerelack�ng,butsowascollaborat�onandtrustamong c�v�lsoc�etyorgan�sat�ons.

Dur�ng �n-depth �nterv�ews, responses were spl�t on whether the government took appropr�ateact�on on �nformat�on prov�ded by NGOs and many part�c�pants avo�ded answer�ng d�rectly. AAmajor�ty agreed that �f the �nformat�on was suffic�ent and well researched, and �f the �nput wassubm�ttedearlyenough,then�twouldbeused.The emphas�s was on prov�d�ng the correct personTheemphas�swasonprov�d�ngthecorrectperson�ntheGOTw�ththe�nformat�onwellbeforetheprocesswascompletedonag�ven�ssue.However,onerespondentremarkedthat“if strong vested interests were backing the government position, that the GOT ignores what CSOs say”.

Anotherre�teratedth�spo�ntofv�ew: “If [the government] supports your position, they’ll use it readily to show the world ‘we are doing the right thing, even the CSOs agree. But if it disagrees with their plans, it will not be welcomed, and you also will not be welcomed.” Fromthehes�tancyofresponsestoth�squest�onprogress�nth�sareaappearstobenotqu�teasadvancedaspart�c�pantswouldhavehoped.

22

23

4.0 CONCLuSiON AND RECOMMENDATiONS

4.1 Summary

Thetr�part�terelat�onsh�pbetweenNGOs,thegovernment,andthedonorcommun�ty�nTanzan�a�sanextremelycomplexone.Anopt�m�st�cnotewasexpressedbymany�nthestudythatcloserplann�ngandwork�ngrelat�onsh�psbetweenthethreesectorsareemerg�ng,demonstratedby�nter-sectorcollaborat�ondur�ng thePRS rev�ewof2003-04.However,cons�derablewar�ness rema�ns.NGOsv�ewdonorsasmorepowerfulthantheGovernment,andtheGovernmentoftenseesc�v�lsoc�etyasacompet�torforresources.

Throughoutthestudy,NGOspresentedw�thded�cat�onands�ncer�ty,andexpressedanunamb�guousdes�refortruepartnersh�pw�ththeGOTanddonoragenc�es.Respondentspo�ntedoutthatwh�leGovernmentanddonorsmayhavethefunds,NGOshavetheon-the-groundexper�enceandexpert�seatlocallevels.Sobywork�ngtogetherasrealpartners–by�nclud�ngNGOs�ntheconcept�onandplann�ngstages,reduc�ngbureaucracy,andcons�der�ngNGOpr�or�t�esratherthand�ctatedagendas–muchmorecouldbeaccompl�shedtowardthecommongoalsofreduc�ngpovertyandfurther�ngdevelopment�nTanzan�a.

4.2 The Roles of NGOs and their Relationship with the Government of Tanzania

Overall,thefind�ngsfromthestudy�nd�catethattherelat�onsh�pbetweenNGOsandtheGovernmentofTanzan�a�sexpand�ngand�mprov�ng.TheGovernmentnowbetterunderstandsthatc�v�lsoc�etyhas a clear role to play �n pol�cy formulat�on. Most NGOs �nd�cated that they deal‘d�rectly’ w�ththeGOTandthat,�ngeneral,theyweresat�sfiedw�ththefrequencyandlevelofcontactw�ththeGovernment.

However,anatmosphereofsusp�c�onalsopervadesmuchofthesector.Therewasanoverallsensethat�fsubm�ss�onstothegovernmentd�dnotagreew�ththeGOT’spos�t�on,or�fstrong,vested�nterestswereopposed,thenNGOeffortsmadeno�mpact.SomerespondentsalsoexpresseddoubtwhethertheGOTfreelyshares�nformat�on,andfeltthatc�t�zensandC�v�lSoc�etyOrgan�sat�onsshouldcont�nuetomon�torandscrut�n�zethegovernmenttoprotectthe�r‘publ�c�nvestment’.Moreover,NGOsshouldchanneland�nterpret�nformat�onbackandforthbetweengovernmentandgrassrootscommun�t�estoenhancepol�cyoutcomes.

Acont�nu�ngneedalsoex�stsforNGOstofillgaps�nserv�ceprov�s�on.Respondentscalledforgreateropenness,transparencyandcooperat�onfromtheGovernmentandpo�ntedtotheneedtorev�setheNGOAct.Att�tudesofthosesurveyedrevealedagenerousrec�procalsp�r�t,w�thpart�c�pantsseek�ngbetter�ntegrat�onandshar�ngw�ththegovernmenttoreal�zecommongoalsforTanzan�a.

A major�ty of NGOs advocated collect�ve act�on and collaborat�on to br�ng �ssues before theGovernment.Networksandcoal�t�onswereseenascruc�ally�mportantforenhanc�ngthecred�b�l�tyand�mpactofc�v�lsoc�ety�nadvanc�ngpro-poorpol�cy.Itwasagreedthatadvocacyeffortsneedto be well �nformed and well organ�sed.V�ew�ng the Government as an adversary was seen ascounterproduct�ve.Thelackofun�tybetweenNGOson�mportant�ssueswascons�deredaweakness�nTanzan�anc�v�lsoc�ety,andpart�c�pantsfeltthatmanyNGOslacksk�llsandcapac�ty, �nclud�ngtheab�l�tytoart�culatethe�rm�ss�onandv�s�on.Otherrespondentsremarkedthatpoor,ruraland�solatedcommun�t�esareoftencutofffromcollaborat�veeffortsandforcedtoactalone,whereasahandfulofstrong‘el�te’profess�onal�sedgroupsgetnot�ced.Indeed,find�ngsshowthatthereg�onald�str�but�onofTanzan�anNGOs�sh�ghlyskewedw�ththemajor�tyoforgan�sat�onss�tuated�nand

24

aroundDaresSalaamandothermajorurbanhubs.Itwasbestronglyarguedthatmeasuresbetakento�ncreasethevo�ceofsmallerlocalorgan�sat�ons.

4.3 NGOs’ Recommendations to Government

Part�c�pat�ngNGOsgavethefollow�ngrecommendat�onstotheGovernmentofTanzan�a:

Inst�tut�onal�zeamechan�smforc�v�lsoc�etypart�c�pat�on�nTanzan�athroughtheestabl�shmentofclearchannelsofcommun�cat�on.Increaseaccessto �nformat�onthroughacomm�tmenttogreateropenness,transparencyandaccountab�l�ty.Helpbu�ldpartnersh�psw�thc�v�lsoc�etytoovercomeany‘usandthem’antagon�smandtoenableworktowardscommongoals.Introducemechan�smstol�nkandfundNGOsw�ths�m�larfocusandexpert�setoworkonjo�ntdonor-orgovernment-�n�t�atedprojects.Explorethe�deaoffund�ngjo�ntprojectspooledaroundMKUKUTAasmanydonorsnowtalkof�mplement�ngMKUKUTApr�or�tyareas–amorecoherentapproachthanthe‘scattershot’effectofmanysmallNGOswork�ng�n�solat�on.Rev�setheNGOActtoallowNGOstooperatemorefreelyandeffect�vely,therebyestabl�sh�ngamoreenabl�ngpol�t�calenv�ronmentforc�v�lsoc�ety.

4.4 The Relationship of NGOs with Donors

Over90%oforgan�sat�onssurveyedaredonorfunded,andthree-fifthsofrespondentsrece�vefund�ngfor60to100%ofthe�ract�v�t�es.Relat�onsw�thdonorswereoften�n�t�allydescr�bedascord�alandsmooth, but w�th further prob�ng, numerous frustrat�ons were ev�dent.Tanzan�an NGOs largelyrece�veprojectbasedfund�ng,andrespondentswerecr�t�calthatonlyl�m�tedresourcesaremadeava�lableforNGOs’coreoperat�ngcosts,personneland�nfrastructure.Part�c�pantsstronglyarguedthatprojectonlyfund�ng�sunsusta�nable�nthelong-term;thatwhenth�sfund�ng�sw�thdrawn,act�v�t�esoftenceaseabruptlyandprematurely.

NGOs also rout�nely compla�ned of pressure from donors concern�ng program pr�or�t�es andcompl�ancew�thr�g�dfund�ngcond�t�ons,exempl�fiedbystatementsthatNGOs’‘handsaret�ed’when�tcomestoprojectsthattheyw�shedtopursue.Manyrespondentsalsov�ewedthegovernment/donorrelat�onsh�passkewedunevenly�nfavourofdonors.Statementsthatdonorsweremorepowerful,andthattheGOTlacksauthor�tyandlargelyal�gnsw�thdonors’d�rect�ves,wereprevalent.Ingeneral,part�c�pantssa�dthattheyweredo�ngtheprojectstheybel�eved�n,butwhenquest�onedfurther,adm�ttedthat‘some’NGOsalteraproject’sdes�gntoal�gnw�thadonor’sfocus�nordertomob�l�zeresources.

Respondentsfurthersuggestedthattheover-emphas�sbydonorsonadvocacyworktotheexclus�onofserv�cedel�verycouldalsoproveshort-s�ghted.However,part�c�pantsrecogn�sedthatpovertyreduct�on�s�mposs�blew�thoutpol�t�cal�nvolvementbyc�v�lsoc�etytoadvocateforpos�t�vepol�cyandleg�slat�vechange.

Respondentsrecommendedthatdonorsdevelopproposalsandprojectsjo�ntlyw�thNGOstoreflectd�str�ct/localpr�or�t�es,andreducethecomplex�t�esoftheappl�cat�onprocess.NGOsalsorequestedthatdonorsd�splaygreateropennessaboutfund�ngagendasandannouncepr�or�t�es�nadvancesothatqual�fiedNGOscanapply.D�sparateorgan�sat�onsw�ths�m�larobject�vescouldbel�nkedthroughc�v�lsoc�etynetworkstoworkjo�ntlyondonorprogrammes.

�)

��)

���)

�v)

v)

v�)

25

Astherecent�n�t�at�vesford�rect,government-to-governmentdevelopmenta�dare�mplemented,�nclud�ngthelatestgrant�nJanuary2006of$542.5m�ll�onfromBr�ta�n,�trema�nstobeseenhowNGOsw�llbeaffectedorw�llrespond.Itmayusher�naneweraofcooperat�onandcollaborat�onbetweenNGOs,donorsandtheState�f,forexample,qual�fiedNGOs�nthehealth,educat�onandwatersectorsarebrought�ntopartnersh�psbytheGOTandfundedtodel�verserv�ces.Acr�t�cal�mpl�cat�on�sthatdonorsshouldseektoplayarolethatensuresmutuallybenefic�alrelat�onsbetweentheStateandc�v�lsoc�ety.Wh�chever�mplementat�onstrateg�esarechosen,str�ngentgovernmentaccountab�l�tyforsectoralfundsw�llbeessent�altoach�ev�ngeconom�cprosper�ty�nTanzan�a.Theallocat�onandd�sbursementofthesefundsw�llneedtobecont�nuallyandcloselyexam�ned.

4.5 NGOs’ Recommendations to Donors

Part�c�pat�ngNGOsmadethefollow�ngrecommendat�onstodonors:

Allocatean�ncreasedproport�onoffund�ngtocoverNGOs’coreoperat�ngcosts,�nfrastructure,personnelandequ�pmenttosusta�nact�v�t�esandach�evedes�redoutcomesbeyondthetermsofcurrentprojects.Developprojectsjo�ntlytoreflectlocalpr�or�t�es.NGOspossessgrassrootsknowledgeandexpert�se.D�splaygreateropennessaboutfund�ngagendas.Announcepr�or�t�es�nadvance(forexample,onceayear)sothatqual�fiedNGOscanapply,andthosethatdonothavenecessaryexper�encew�llnotwastet�meandresourceswr�t�ngdoomedproposals.Reducethecomplex�t�esoftheappl�cat�onprocess.NGOpersonnelaretalentedandded�catedthoughsomet�mesnoth�ghlyeducated.Compl�catedbureaucrat�crequ�rementsforfund�ngappl�cat�onsandreport�ngareoftenunnecessar�lyd�fficultandrestr�ct�ve.Prov�de more techn�cal ass�stance, �nclud�ng capac�ty tra�n�ng �n the preparat�on of jo�ntproposalstoactual�zethe�deaof‘partnersh�psfordevelopment’.C�v�lSoc�etyOrgan�sat�onsneedhelp.Donoragenc�esneedtoe�thers�mpl�fylog�st�cs,orprov�declear�nstruct�onsand/ortra�n�ng�nappl�cat�onprocedures.Introducea‘pr�or�tyl�st’approachtofund�ng,wherebydonorsadvert�setop�csorprojectsbe�ngcons�deredforfund�ngnat�onally.NGOsthensubm�tproposalstodemonstraterelevantexpert�seandcapac�ty,andrece�vefund�ngforspec�ficport�onsoftheproject.Donorscouldthen l�nk d�sparate organ�sat�ons through c�v�l soc�ety networks to work jo�ntly on theseprojects.Increase fund�ng for transportand �nfrastructure toexpand thepresenceandserv�cesofNGOs�nmoreremote,ruralareas.

4.6 NGOs impact on Poverty Reduction and Development in Tanzania

Almost80%oftheNGOssurveyedspendalloralmostallofthe�rt�meonpovertyreduct�onanddevelopment�ssues.Desp�teallthebarr�ers,mostNGOsfeltthatthe�rorgan�sat�onswerehav�ngalargelypos�t�ve�mpactonpol�cy.Theareaof�mpactmostfrequentlyc�tedwas�nputtothePovertyReduct�onStrateg�es(PRS)rev�ew�n2003-04.Part�c�pantsfeltthatmanyofthe�rrecommendat�onswere�ncorporated�ntothestrategy,espec�ally�ntheareasofd�sab�l�tyandgender.ItwasalsofeltthatthePRSrev�ewhadhelpedma�nstreamthefightaga�nstpoverty�ntogovernmentpol�cyandcreatedafreshconsc�ousness�nthecountrythat“poverty�snotnormalandcanbeerad�cated”.TheGOT�snowmore�ncl�nedtoseeNGOsaspartners�npovertyreduct�on,andtorecogn�sethevalueofpubl�c�nput.Afurtherpos�t�venote�sthatthePRSrev�ewpromotedacloserwork�ngrelat�onsh�pbetweenthegovernmentanddonors,andthatmanydonorsaretalk�ngof�mplement�ngMKUKUTApr�or�tyareas.

�)

��)

���)

�v)

v)

v�)

v��)

26

Whereasprogresshadbeenmade�nadvanc�nglawsandpol�c�es,respondentsfeltthatagapex�stedbetweenpol�cyandpract�ce.Three-quartersofpart�c�pantsc�tedev�denceofpos�t�ve�mpactsonpoverty reduct�on and development result�ng from the�r work but the �mpacts noted were formostly local�zed.Moreover, less thanone-fifthof respondentsemployed formalmon�tor�ngandevaluat�onproceduresorexternalrev�ewstomeasurethe�reffect�veness.As�gn�ficantproport�onofrespondentsalsoexpressedasenseofd�scouragementattheoverwhelm�ngamountofworklefttodotocombatever-�ncreas�nglevelsofpoverty.Theseorgan�sat�onsfeltthatfewactualchangescanbemeasuredasyet.Itwasw�delybel�evedthattheentangl�ngbureaucrac�esofbothdonorsandthegovernmentcr�ppleeffortstowarddevelopmentbydelay�ngdec�s�onsandtheallocat�onof resources. Nevertheless, many of the successes �dent�fied prov�de truly hearten�ng news forcommun�t�es,�nclud�ngreduced�nc�denceofHIV/AIDS�nfect�on,progressaga�nstthepract�ceofFGM,tougherlawsforv�olenceaga�nstwomenandch�ldren,h�gherschoolattendance,and�ncreasedserv�cesforthed�sabled.

To�mprovethe�r�mpact,�nd�v�dualNGOsandnetworksrecogn�sedtheneedtoacttobu�ldsk�llsandcapac�tytoovercomethe�rownorgan�sat�onalweaknesses.Greatercollaborat�onandtrustmustalsobeestabl�shedbetweenNGOs.Acodeofeth�csappl�cabletoorgan�sat�onsatalllevelsfromnat�onalNGOstov�llage/commun�tybasedgroupswasalsosuggestedtoremoveanyposs�b�l�tyofcorrupt�onorm�smanagementsothatthecred�b�l�tyofc�v�lsoc�ety�sstrengthenedandma�nta�ned.

4.7 Recommendations for improvements in NGOs and Networks

Acttoovercome�nternalorgan�sat�onalweaknesses.SomeNGOslackcapac�ty,financ�alandhumanresources,andoftentheab�l�tytoart�culatethe�rm�ss�onandv�s�on�sweak.Ensurethatadvocacyeffortsarewell�nformedandwellorgan�sed.Improveknowledgeofgovernmentmechan�smsandkeyentrypo�ntsforc�v�lsoc�etypart�c�pat�on.Whenact�ngaschangeagents,avo�dconfront�ngthegovernmentasanadversary,asth�s�scounterproduct�ve.Throughtra�n�ngandtechn�calass�stance,networksandothercoal�t�onscanass�stNGOsto�mprove�ntheseareas.Recogn�se that the work of NGOs supplements but does not replace the work of thegovernment�ndel�ver�ngsoc�alserv�ces.Establ�sh greater collaborat�on and trust between NGOs and work together to avo�d‘re-�nvent�ng the wheel’ for each project. Un�te �n collect�ve act�on to strengthen act�v�t�es.Throughnetworks,promotel�nkagesbetweenNGOsw�ths�m�larobject�vestoworkonjo�ntlyfunded�n�t�at�ves.Introducenetworkmechan�smsto�ntegrate�nformat�ongatheredbyNGOsfromgrassrootscommun�t�es and prov�ded to the government. Follow-up w�th GOT to track results ofadvocacy.Collect�vevo�cescanhelptoencourageGOTtodel�veronpol�t�calprom�sesoffa�rness,povertyreduct�onandeconom�cgrowthforall.Developacodeofeth�csappl�cabletoorgan�sat�onsatall levels fromnat�onaltov�llage/commun�tybasedgroups to removeanyh�ntofcorrupt�onorm�smanagement soas toma�nta�nthecred�b�l�tyofc�v�lsoc�ety.Fac�l�tategreaterpart�c�pat�onandnetwork�ngopportun�t�esforsmall,espec�allyrural-based,organ�sat�ons.MostsmallNGOslackresourcesto�nteractw�ththeupperechelonsofpol�cymakers�nDaresSalaam.Fund�ngbynetworks,donorsorthegovernmentshouldbeprov�dedtoaddressth�s�mbalance.Commun�cat�onchannelstoeffect�velyd�ssem�nate�nformat�on�nbothd�rect�onsshouldbeestabl�shed.

�)

��)

���)

�v)

v)

v�)

v��)

27

REFERENCES

Gu�j�t, I and Shah, M.K. (Eds.) (1998). The Myth of Community. London: Intermed�ateTechnologyPubl�cat�ons.

Hoekstra,A.(2004).ThePresenceofC�v�lSoc�etyOrgan�sat�ons�nTanzan�a:ReasonsthatUnderl�etheReg�onalD�fferences.Paperwr�ttenundertheauthor�tyofTheRoyalNetherlandsEmbassy,DaresSalaam,Tanzan�aandTheUn�vers�tyofGron�ngen,Gron�ngen,TheNetherlands.

Igoe,J.(2002).Scal�ngUpC�v�lSoc�ety:DonorMoney,NGOsandthePastoral�stLandR�ghtsMovement�nTanzan�a. Development and Change 34(5): 862-885. Oxford, UK: Inst�tute of Soc�alStud�es/BlackwellPubl�sh�ng.

K�ondo,A.(1993).StructuralAdjustmentandNon-GovernmentalOrgan�zat�ons�nTanzan�a:ACaseStudy.InP.G�bbon(Ed.)Social Change and Economic Reform in Africa, pp.161-83.Uppsala:theScand�nav�anInst�tuteofAfr�canStud�es.

Lange,S,K�ondo,A.andWallev�k,H.(2000).C�v�lSoc�ety�nTanzan�a.

www.cm�.noAccessed4/4/2005.

Mercer, C. (2003). Perform�ng Partnersh�p: C�v�l Soc�ety and the Illus�ons of Good Governance �nTanzan�a.Political Geography22:741-763.UK:Elsev�er.

M�chael,S.(2004).ThePowerofLocalNGOs�nTanzan�a.InUndermining Development: The Absence of Power Among Local NGOs in Africa.Oxford:JamesCurryandInd�anaUn�vers�tyPress.

Nat�onalPol�cyonNGOs�nTanzan�a(2000).DaresSalaam,Tanzan�a:TheNat�onalSteer�ngComm�tteeforNGOPol�cy.

NGOStatementonJo�ntHealthSectorRev�ew(2005).Promot�ngEffect�vePartnersh�ps�nHealth.DaresSalaam,Tanzan�a.NGOStatementonPubl�cPr�vatePartnersh�ps.

Off�ce of the Pr�me M�n�ster ofTanzan�a (1996). Nat�onal Pol�cy on the Promot�on of Non-Governmental Organ�zat�ons �nTanzan�a. Dar es Salaam,Tanzan�a: PMO (unpubl�shedpol�cydocument).

Reuben,J.(2002).NGOsandAfr�ca�ntheNewM�llenn�um:LessonsfromTanzan�a.PaperPresentat�onforPanelonRe-th�nk�ngAfr�canDevelopment,CODESRIAGeneralAssemblyMeet�ng,Kampala,Uganda,December.

Sh�vj�,IssaG.(2004).Reflect�onsonNGOs�nTanzan�a:Whatweare,whatwearenot,andwhatweoughttobe.Development in Practice,Vol.14(5),August.

S�mon, K.W. (2002). Publ�cat�on of the Nat�onal Pol�cy on Nongovernmental Organ�zat�ons. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law,Vol4(4).

www.�cnl.org/journal/vol4�ss4/cr_suba.htmAccessed18/10/04

Un�tedRepubl�cofTanzan�a.Nat�onalStrategyforGrowthandPovertyReduct�on(2005)V�cePres�dent’sOffice:DaresSalaam.www.tanzan�a.go.tz/pdf/nsgrptext.pdfAccessed16/11/06

Un�tedRepubl�cofTanzan�a.Non-GovernmentalOrgan�zat�onsAct(2002).DaresSalaam,Tanzan�a:GovernmentPr�nter.

28

OThER PuBLiCATiONS By REPOA

Books

“Researching Poverty in Tanzania: problems, policies and perspectives.” Ed�tedbyIdr�sK�kula,JonasK�pokola,IssaSh�vj�,JosephSembojaandBenTar�mo

“Local Perspectives on Globalisation: The African Case.” Ed�tedbyJosephSemboja,JumaMwapachuandEduardJansen

“Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania: Recent Research Issues” Ed�tedbyM.S.D.Bagachwa

Research Reports

07.2 “Financing Public Heath Care: Insurance, User Fees or Taxes? Welfare Comparisons in Tanzania”.

Deogras�asP.Mush�

07.1 “Rice Production in the Maswa District, Tanzania and its Contribution to Poverty Alleviation.” JerryA.Nga�lo,Ab�udL.Kaswam�laandCather�neJ.Senkoro

06.3 “The Contribution of Microfinance Institutions to Poverty Reduction in Tanzania” Sever�neS.A.KessyandFraternM.Ur�o

06.2 “The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Combating Soil Infertility and Poverty in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.”

JumaM.W�ckamaandStephenT.Mw�homeke

06.1. “Assessing Market Distortions Affecting Poverty Reduction Efforts on Smallholder Tobacco Production in Tanzania.”... . . . . . . .Denn�sRweyemamuandMon�caK�maro

05.1 “Changes in the Upland Irrigation System and Implications for Rural Poverty Alleviation. A Case of the Ndiwa Irrigation System, West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.” CosmasH.Sokon�andTam�lwa�C.Shechambo

04.3. “The Role of Traditional Irrigation Systems in Poverty Alleviation in Semi-Arid Areas: The Case of Chamazi in Lushoto District, Tanzania.” Ab�udL.Kaswam�laandBakerM.Masurul�

04.2. “Assessing the Relative Poverty of Clients and Non-clients of Non-bank Micro-finance Institutions. The case of the Dar es Salaam and Coast Regions.” HughK.FraserandV�v�anKaz�

04.1. “The Use of Sustainable Irrigation for Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania. The Case of Smallholder Irrigation Schemes in Igurusi, Mbarali District.” ShadrackMwakal�laandChr�st�neNoe

03.7. “Poverty and Environment: Impact analysis of Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project on “Sustainable Livelihoods” of Urban Poor” M.A.M.V�ctorandA.M.P.Makalle

29

03.6. “Access to Formal and Quasi-Formal Credit by Smallholder Farmers and Artisanal Fishermen: A Case of Zanzibar”.. . . . . . . . .Khal�dMohamed

03.5. “Poverty and Changing Livelihoods of Migrant Maasai Pastoralists in Morogoro and Kilosa Districts” C.Mung’ong’oandD.Mwamfupe

03.4. “The Role of Tourism in Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania”... . . .NathanaelLuvangaandJosephSh�tundu

03.3. “Natural Resources Use Patterns and Poverty Alleviation Strategies in the Highlands and Lowlands of Karatu and Monduli Districts – A Study on Linkages and Environmental Implications” ...P�usZebbeYandaandNdalahwaFaust�nMadulu

03.2.. “Shortcomings of Linkages Between Environmental Conservation and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania”

. Idr�sS.K�kula,E.Z.MnzavaandClaudeMung’ong’o

03.1. “School Enrolment, Performance, Gender and Poverty (Access to Education) in Mainland Tanzania” A.V.Y.MbelleandJ.Katabaro

02.3. “Poverty and Deforestation around the Gazetted Forests of the Coastal Belt of Tanzania” .....God�usKahyarara,W�lfredMboweandOmar�K�mwer�

02.2. “The Role of Privatisation in Providing the Urban Poor Access to Social Services: the Case of Solid Waste Collection Services in Dar es Salaam”.... . . . . .SumaKaare

02.1. “Economic Policy and Rural Poverty in Tanzania: A Survey of Three Regions” .. .Long�nusRutas�tara

01.5. “Demographic Factors, Household Composition, Employment and Household Welfare” S.T.Mw�sombaandB.H.R.K��lu

01.4. “Assessment of Village Level Sugar Processing Technology in Tanzania”.... . .A.S.Chungu,C.Z.M.K�mamboandT.A.L.Bal�

01.3. “Poverty and Family Size Patterns: Comparison Across African Countries”......................................................................................C.LwechunguraKamuzora

01.2. “The Role of Traditional Irrigation Systems (Vinyungu) in Alleviating Poverty in Iringa Rural District”... . . . . . . . . .TengeMkav�dandaandAb�udKaswam�la

01.1. “Improving Farm Management Skills for Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Njombe District” A�daIs�n�kaandNtenguaMdoe

00.5. “Conservation and Poverty: The Case of Amani Nature Reserve” GeorgeJamb�yaandHusse�nSosovele

00.4 “Poverty and Family Size in Tanzania: Multiple Responses to Population Pressure?” C.L.KamuzoraandW.Mkanta

30

00.3 “Survival and Accumulation Strategies at the Rural-Urban Interface: A Study of Ifakara Town, Tanzania” AnthonyChamwal�

00.2. “Poverty, Environment and Livelihood along the Gradients of the Usambaras on Tanzania.” AdolfoMascarenhas

00.1. “Foreign Aid, Grassroots Participation and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania: The HESAWA Fiasco” S.Rugumamu

99.1. “Credit Schemes and Women’s Empowerment for Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Tanga Region, Tanzania” I.A.M.Makombe,E.I.TembaandA.R.M.K�hombo

98.5. “Youth Migration and Poverty Alleviation: A Case Study of Petty Traders (Wamachinga) in Dar es Salaam” A.J.L�v�gaandR.D.KMekacha

98.4. “Labour Constraints, Population Dynamics and the AIDS Epidemic: The Case of Rural Bukoba District, Tanzania”. C.L.KamuzoraandS.Gwalema

98.3. “The Use of Labour-Intensive Irrigation Technologies in Alleviating Poverty in Majengo, Mbeya Rural District” J.Sh�tunduandN.Luvanga

98.2 “Poverty and Diffusion of Technological Innovations to Rural Women: The Role of Entrepreneurship” B.D.D�yamett,R.S.MabalaandR.Mandara

98.1. “The Role of Informal and Semi-Formal Finance in Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania: Results of a Field Study in Two Regions” A.K.Kashul�za,J.P.Hella,F.T.MagayaneandZ.S.K.Mvena

97.3. “Educational Background, Training and Their Influence on Female-Operated Informal Sector Enterprises” J.O’R�ordan.F.Swa�andA.Rugumyamheto

97.2. “The Impact of Technology on Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Artisanal Mining in Tanzania” BW.Mutagwaba,R.Mwa�popoAkoandA.Mlak�

97.1. “Poverty and the Environment: The Case of Informal Sandmining, Quarrying and Lime-Making Activities in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania” GeorgeJamb�ya,Kass�mKul�ndwaandHusse�nSosovele

Special Papers

07.22 “Local Governance in Tanzania: Observations From Six Councils 2002-2003” AmonChal�gha,Flor�daHenjewele,AmbroseKessyandGeoffreyMwambe

07.21 “Tanzanian Non-Governmental Organisations – Their Perceptions of Their Relationship with the Government of Tanzania and Donors, and Their Role in Poverty Reduction and Development”

31

06.20 “Service Delivery in Tanzania: Findings from Six Councils 2002-2003.” E�narBraathenandGeoffreyMwambe

06.19 “Developing Social Protection in Tanzania Within a Context of Generalised Insecurity” MarcWuyts

06.18 “To Pay or Not to Pay? Citizens’ Views on Taxation by Local Authorities in Tanzania.” Odd-HelgeFjeldstad

17. “When Bottom-Up Meets Top-Down: The Limits of Local Participation in Local Government Planning in Tanzania.” Br�anCookseyandIdr�sK�kula

16 “Local Government Finances and Financial Management in Tanzania: Observations from Six Councils 2002 – 2003.” Odd-HelgeFjeldstad,Flor�daHenjewele,GeoffreyMwambe,ErastoNgalewaandKnutNygaard

15 “Poverty Research in Tanzania: Guidelines for Preparing Research Proposals” Br�anCookseyandServac�usL�kwel�le

14 “Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation of REPOA Activities” A.ChunguandS.Muller-Ma�ge

13 “Capacity Building for Research” M.S.D.Bagachwa

12 “Some Practical Research Guidelines” Br�anCookseyandAlfredLokuj�

11 “A Bibliography on Poverty in Tanzania” B.Mutagwaba

10 “An Inventory of Potential Researchers and Institutions of Relevance to Research on Poverty in Tanzania” A.F.Lwa�tama

9 “Guidelines for Preparing and Assessing REPOA Research Proposals” REPOASecretar�atandBr�anCooksey

8 “Social and Cultural Factors Influencing Poverty in Tanzania” C.K.Omar�

7 “Gender and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania: Issues from and for Research” Patr�c�aMbughun�

6 “The Use of Technology in Alleviating Poverty in Tanzania” A.S.ChunguandG.R.R.Mandara

5 “Environmental Issues and Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania” .. . . .AdolfoMascarenhas

4. “Implications of Public Policies on Poverty and Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Tanzania” F�del�sMtat�fikolo

32

3. “Who’s Poor in Tanzania? A Review of Recent Poverty Research” Br�anCooksey

2. “Poverty Assessment in Tanzania: Theoretical, Conceptual and Methodological Issues” J.Semboja

1 “Changing Perceptions of Poverty and the Emerging Research Issues” M.S.D.Bagachwa

Project Briefs

Br�ef6 LocalGovernmentReform�nTanzan�a2002-2005:SummaryofResearchF�nd�ngsonGovernance,F�nanceandServ�ceDel�very

Br�ef5 Ch�ldrenPart�c�pat�ng�nResearch

Br�ef4 Changes�nHouseholdNon-IncomeWelfareInd�cators-Canpovertymapp�ngbeusedtopred�ctachange�npercap�taconsumpt�onovert�me?

Br�ef3 Part�c�patoryApproachestoLocalGovernmentPlann�ng�nTanzan�a,theL�m�tstoLocalPart�c�pat�on

Br�ef2 Improv�ngTransparencyofF�nanc�alAffa�rsattheLocalGovernmentLevel�nTanzan�a

Br�ef1 GovernanceInd�catorsontheTanzan�aGovernanceNot�ceboardWebs�te

TGN1 What�stheTanzan�aGovernanceNot�ceboard?

LGR12 Trust�nPubl�cF�nance:C�t�zens’V�ewsontaxat�onbyLocalAuthor�t�es�nTanzan�a

LGR11 Domest�cWaterSupply:TheNeedforaB�gPush

LGR10 Isthecommun�tyhealthfundbetterthanuserfeesforfinanc�ngpubl�chealthcare?

LGR9 Arefeesthemajorbarr�ertoaccess�ngpubl�chealthcare?

LGR8 Pr�maryeducat�ons�ncethe�ntroduct�onofthePr�maryEducat�onDevelopmentPlan

LGR7 C�t�zens’accessto�nformat�ononlocalgovernmentfinances

LGR6 Lowawarenessamongstc�t�zensoflocalgovernmentreforms

LGR5 Feesatthed�spensarylevel:Isun�versalaccessbe�ngcomprom�sed?

LGR4 TASAF–asupportoranobstacletolocalgovernmentreform

LGR3 Counc�llorsandcommun�tyleaders–partnersh�porconfl�ctof�nterest?LessonsfromtheSusta�nableMwanzaProject

LGR2 Newchallengesforlocalgovernmentrevenueenhancement

LGR1 AbouttheLocalGovernmentReformproject