In this Chapter:
A. The GEF Cross-Borders Biodiversity Project (CBBP) in Minziro-Sango Bay	Next Chapter
B. Linking forestry—But also people	Return to TOC
C. Policy issues and analysis—Seeking regional compatibility and synergy	Return to BSP Publications

Chapter IV. Resource Management Activities Post-1998—The Start of TBNRM

A. The GEF Cross-Borders Biodiversity Project (CBBP) in Minziro-Sango Bay

The CBBP is a three-country (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) program of activity with four distinct implementation components; there are three independent national projects, and a networking regional component that provides linkage among nationally implemented activities. The project’s philosophy on governance is based, first, on the premise that national governments have the sovereign right to manage their natural resources and the biodiversity values contained within them—a principle of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The project follows further guidance from the CBD (see the Regional Overview in this volume) that countries should cooperate in the management of shared resources. The regional component attempts to facilitate such cooperation.

A second premise of the project is that strong regional activity can only be built on the basis of strong national foundations, hence much of the project’s capacity building efforts is aimed at supporting institutions in-country. These institutions are encouraged to build linkages (technical, personal, and administrative) across borders at all levels—national, district, and sub-district. Each level provides an enabling environment for the level below. In this case national policy empowers districts to conduct cross-border “good neighbour meetings.” Districts can encourage sub-districts to do the same even at the village level. National policy works on a broad scale as well as at a specific sectoral level. The new emphasis on East African regionalism through the East African Community empowers countries to seek cooperation at political and technical levels.

A third premise is the scientific basis of TBNRM, that maintaining larger ecosystems by joint cross-borders management of smaller entities on different sides of the border(s), yields greater ecological sustainability and is less likely to cause loss of species and of genetic variability. This is the foundation of conservation biology.

The CBBP believes in building on existing institutions, not creating new ones, and in keeping with that philosophy, advocates that the project not undertake tasks directly, but instead facilitate national partners to do the actual work. Partnerships thus become a major part of the project implementation strategy. Primary partners are the forest sectors, whose responsibility is the management of forests nationally and at decentralized district levels. Other partners, also of importance, are the stakeholders in forest management, including rural communities and product and service user groups and civil society in general through NGOs and CBOs. Oversight of project progress is provided through Site-level Steering Committees (SSCs) and then linking these SSCs across borders to discuss technical issues of relevance to TBNRM. National Steering Committees and a regional steering committee add different layers of interaction.

Successful TBNRM requires process at three levels. CBBP believes that all three levels of intervention are necessary within the country:

Village level: by-laws, affecting the lowest decision-making level—i.e., households and the decision whether or not to cut trees.
District level: different set of by-laws, instructions to villages, empowerment of villages (funding).
National level: generally and sectorally empowering and funding district relationships across borders.

Each level has a cross-border dimension: village talking to village, district to district, and sector to sector.

B. Linking forestry—But also people

CBBP’s primary focus is forest, but people are seen as the route to that focused goal. There is a need therefore to link user groups, end users, and stakeholders (e.g., customs, police, traders, foresters, agriculture projects, biodiversity specialists) across borders. Linking protected area managers alone is not sufficient for sustainable TBNRM processes. Box 7 illustrates the cross-borders planning process at the MSBF site.

Box 7. Site Planning Processes in the Cross-Borders Project

The management of transboundary natural resources depends on dialogue—dialogue between stakeholders within a country, and dialogue among stakeholders in adjacent countries. This dialogue, if it is to be effective, needs to be translated into action, which presupposes that decision-makers have approved the dialogue process. In CBBP, the project dialogue process has the blessing of national government partners—both at Treasury and at sectoral (forestry) and environmental levels. This acceptance is further heightened by the political support of the EAC. The Cross-Borders Project enlisted buy-in from various stakeholders through a participatory site action planning process. This involved assessment of values and threats to the forest ecosystem by undertaking participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methodologies at the village level. This step then formed the basis of planning workshops that generated an objective tree and thereby a “site action plan.” This took place on both sides of the border and lessons and experiences were exchanged. The site action plans were developed in both countries from a mutually agreed problem tree, and they several activities in common (see the Annex).

The project also has site steering committees on both sides of the border. These committees exchange experiences and make decisions regarding cross-border problems. Local or village environment committees have been established and are in use to assist resource management. The implementation of project activities has been facilitated by the joint experiences. There has been joint use of methodologies from site planning to implementation. Inventory information has been exchanged among countries. Countries are sharing expertise on botanical survey and taxonomy. Boundary surveys are taking place in both countries and data outcomes are being exchanged. Because of the joint site action planning process, it has been easier to implement activities. Joint activities (including provision of alternatives) are being undertaken jointly on both sides of the border. The expertise on the introduction of alternative resource use strategy (e.g., improved cook stoves leading to reduced fuelwood use) is being shared and lessons learned from implementation experience in each of the countries.

The CBBP has developed a common monitoring and evaluation framework for the two countries.

C. Policy issues and analysis—Seeking regional compatibility and synergy

The Regional Component of CBBP commissioned a detailed study and training process on both broader policy analysis and economic policy analysis (undertaken respectively by ACTS and IUCN’s East Africa Regional Office). Findings from the initial scoping review of policies are detailed below.

1. Similarities and divergences in national policies for conserving biodiversity

The ACTS 1999 preliminary study on policy showed that while there is considerable policy convergence in how different countries address the conservation and use of natural resources and biodiversity, there are a number of cases of policy inconsistency that have negative implications for biodiversity management. In the case of cross-border biodiversity, these inconsistencies are more apparent at the district or site level. It is the differences in the stage of policy implementation, rather than different policies, where the impact is most felt. One example of different policies is timber harvesting within Sango Bay-Minziro forests.

Local environmental policies and policy implementation

The issues of local environmental policies and policy implementation are important in the light of the policy scenarios at the national level. Both Tanzania and Uganda are pursuing extremely rigorous decentralization programs, although the countries’ real implementation of decentralization is at different stages. For example Uganda has stronger environmental processes at district and sub-district levels. In both countries the essential tenet of the program is to vest the districts and other local government units with powers to make policies and laws that are consistent with national policies and legislation. Consequently, districts are increasingly taking on added administrative and policy-making responsibilities including environmental management. Several observations can be made with respect to this decentralization phenomenon.

First, the degree and speed at which decentralization is taking place is variable. The level of policy commitment to make districts a focus of planning is not always the same.

Second, even where powers and responsibilities have been devolved substantially, it is apparent that no analysis of the practical implications of the policies has taken place. In the case of environmental management, districts were not well prepared (or funded) to take on additional responsibilities. They still grapple with issues related to policy making, policy development, and policy analysis.

Third, it is clear that the level of understanding of national policies is not sufficient at the district level. Whereas some departmental officers in the districts have the policy documents concerning their sectors, they do not possess sufficient knowledge of other policy processes that affect their sector. Biodiversity management is a cross-cutting issue that requires an integrated understanding of policy issues. Promoting inter- and intrasectoral policy linkages at the district level ought to be seen as a precondition for enhancing both vertical and horizontal policy integration.

Finally, while there has been some unofficial cross-border interaction among the relevant officials from the target districts (increasing over the last year within the context of CBBP), there is little formal interaction. While this scenario may be attributed to the absence of formal arrangements for such meetings, there are civil service limitations prohibiting such interactions. However, emerging practice points to the fact that such constraints can be handled administratively at the local level, including in Bukoba and Rakai. This essentially cuts out clearing procedures and the bureaucracy involved. Even in the absence of formal mechanisms for cross-border interactions, there is sufficient political goodwill among the district leaders to facilitate and encourage such meetings where necessary.

Policy implementation at the district and local levels

There are different policy instruments that a district or a lower local government authority may utilize either to articulate local policies or to implement national policies. At the district level, the main policy instruments are the budget and the district development plans. District council and technical staff at the district do not always appreciate the importance of these instruments in addressing policy issues and sequencing different policy options. To achieve a balance in favor of natural resources and biodiversity in particular, there is a need to demonstrate the linkages between biodiversity and local and household economies. In practice, the linkage between the councils and the civil servants appears limited to the preparation and debate of the various policy instruments. However, there is growing appreciation that more constructive engagement would not only facilitate district agenda setting but would also enhance the quality of decision making at the district level. This linkage can be enhanced through targeted short-term awareness programs for both the civil servants and the councils. Technical staff at the district level need skills in policy research and analysis so as to generate new policy ideas and bring those ideas into the political arena.

Another instrument of policy implementation is using local ordinances, by-laws, and guidelines. The Uganda Local Government Act empowers district councils to make ordinances and lower local governments to make by-laws. The act contains elaborate procedures for developing such instruments. In Tanzania local governments are envisioned to be “free to make policy and operational decisions consistent with the laws of the land and government policies without interference of central government institutions. [See the Policy Paper on Local Government Reform, United Republic of Tanzania (1998b).] Local governments have powers to make by-laws. The making of these essential policy instruments including the making and passing of the development plan and sector plans and by-laws is a reserve of local governments and cannot be delegated.

A major challenge for local authorities is to use existing policies and policy instruments to mobilize the local communities to support conservation efforts. Creating sufficient interest in the local populations and local authorities will largely depend on how successful the project is in demonstrating the economic benefits that may accrue to these stakeholders as a result of their conservation efforts. That implicitly means that the cooperating governments or local governments must be able to commercialize and recognize the multiple roles of these ecosystems. This will include, but not be limited to, removal of policy and administrative barriers to market efficiency, as well as the introduction of appropriate incentives to the private sector and liberalization.

Institutional mechanisms for cross border management: The nature of regional institutions

Considerable progress has been made in developing and implementing regional initiatives for collaboration in the field of environmental management. At the regional level, the most important institutional arrangement is the Sectoral Committee on Environment of the East African Community. These high-level initiatives can be translated into real actions at the site level. District authorities and lower local governments are important vehicles for implementing both regional and national policy commitments. It is therefore important to explore the degree of horizontal interaction at that level and establish how that interaction can be facilitated.

There are several threats to biodiversity that would best be addressed by joint efforts between authorities and communities at the project sites. This is essential for ensuring integrated approaches to conservation and development, harmonious policy and law development, and coordinated implementation of similar policies regarding the management of the project sites. Currently the mechanisms for collaboration within the MSBF site are largely informal in nature. This informal interaction is even pronounced at the local level where local representatives attend village meetings at either side of the border. In other cases—especially in pastoralist situations—the institutions of traditional leaders or elders are better developed. The use of such institutions of elders may provide legitimacy for biodiversity conservation activities.

At the district level, there are also informal and formal mechanisms that bring together district political heads and specialized departments including those dealing with the environment. These mechanisms are popularly referred to as “Solidarity Meetings” or “Good Neighbourliness meetings.” The meetings address several issues ranging from security to health, environment, agriculture, vermin control, veterinary services, and cultural issues. The current mechanism has several deficiencies. In addition to the absence of a follow-up mechanism, there is no procedure for agenda setting; meetings therefore spend time on agreeing on agendas before engaging in substantive discussions. This problem is further compounded by the diversity of the participants who include district political heads, security chiefs, and heads of departments. There is thus a need to find ways of reducing the bureaucracy of diplomacy involved in both arranging and following up on the decisions of these meetings. The CBBP has built on this district framework by bringing site steering committees together to discuss conservation in more detail; these findings are then passed on to the formal district meetings.

Benefits of cooperation in managing the shared Minziro-Sango Bay forest ecosystem

There are many potential benefits that could accrue to different stakeholders that directly or indirectly derive from joint efforts to address ecosystem-degrading activities at cross-border sites. These benefits accrue at different institutional levels:

Cooperation in the management of cross-border ecosystems has the potential to reestablish key ecological functions that may have been previously disrupted by the delimitation of international borders.
Cross-border biodiversity management is likely to create increased opportunities for expanded ecotourism, diffuse tourist concentrations, and probably lead to aggregate increases in the total number of tourists. At present tourism contributes significantly to national GDP in both countries.
Cross-border ecosystem-based activities such as joint technical meetings, research, monitoring, and training are likely to promote staff morale, transfer of expertise, and conservation technologies as well as information sharing between the countries. This will increase prospects for the development of coherent and compatible policies and management plans, strategies, and conservation priorities.

2. How economic policies affect forest biodiversity in Uganda and Tanzania

Policies are set by governments in order to influence the ways that national economies work, both at the overall macro level and at the individual sector level. Policies aim to reach certain goals, targets, and patterns of economic activity by using various economic, market, legal, and institutional instruments to encourage or discourage particular forms and types of economic activities. While macroeconomic policy sets the conditions under which the whole national economy operates, sectoral policies translate these broad goals and targets into a series of concrete goals and strategies for action at the sectoral level of the economy. Macroeconomic policies throughout Eastern Africa influence exchange rates, money supply, and interest rates so as to achieve a particular rate of economic growth. Agricultural policies use a combination of subsidies, taxes and credit arrangements to promote goals of food security, increased export earnings, and rural income generation. Forest policies have had little direct effect on economic macro-policy issues.

Policies, and their various supportive instruments, influence forest biodiversity in East Africa because they shape economic activities that impact on the ecological and biological status of forests. While these economic activities (for example, the establishment of protected areas, or the expansion of agriculture) have a direct influence on forest biodiversity status, it is the policies encouraging these activities to happen in the first place that form the underlying or root economic causes of forest biodiversity status. Because economic policies in Tanzania and Uganda often ignore biodiversity impacts, they send signals that encourage producers and consumers to degrade natural resources and biodiversity in the course of economic activity, or can fail to set in place the conditions under which forests are conserved. For example, energy policies that increase electricity and/or kerosene costs stimulate the increased use of wood fuel and consequently forest degradation. Conversely, economic policies and their supportive instruments could provide valuable tools for forest biodiversity conservation.

The nature of economic policies in East Africa—Macroeconomic policy

Both similarities and differences exist in the recent economic histories of East African countries. These histories have shaped the nature and scope of economic policies today. Over the 1970s and 1980s these economies were characterized to a greater (Tanzania and Uganda) or lesser (Kenya) extent by heavy levels of state intervention in the economy. This included the domination of productive sectors by public and parastatal enterprises, intervention in key prices and markets, and heavy restrictions on external trade, domestic finance, and interest and exchange rates. In Uganda, economic performance since independence was influenced by a protracted period of civil unrest. In Uganda and Tanzania the conditions for economic management led to a situation where their national economies, by the mid 1980s, faced severe stagnation, low growth, high public sector and trade deficits, and rising inflation and unemployment. It was in response to these economic problems that in both countries a similar series of macroeconomic reform processes were set in place in the mid-1980s.

The nature of economic policies in East Africa—Sectoral economic policies

Macroeconomic goals have been translated into a series of economic strategies and instruments at the level of individual sectors in Tanzania and Uganda. Again, these sectoral economic policies have a high degree of similarity between the two countries. Key sectoral strategies and instruments in the forest biodiversity-impacting “productive” sectors of the economy include the agriculture sector. Both Tanzania and Uganda have a policy focus on expanding and diversifying agricultural production so as to improve rural income and employment, strengthen food security, and generate exports and foreign exchange earnings. Historically protected through a series of subsidies and price controls, input and output prices and markets in Tanzania and Uganda are now almost fully liberalized, and subject to little or no government intervention. Agricultural sector activities, however, remain protected, albeit implicitly. They are, for example, subject to much higher levels of government spending on research and extension than many other sectors of the economy, and they are favored by preferable rates and availability of credit and inputs, better incentives for investment, and lower tax rates.

The impact of economic policies on forest biodiversity in East Africa

The remarkable degree of convergence between both macroeconomic and sectoral economic policies in Tanzania and Uganda, as well as the common guidance provided in emerging regional policy, means that there are few overt economic policy conflicts between the two countries in the region. Of greater threat to forest biodiversity conservation are the conflicts in economic policies and goals within both countries. These are outlined below.

Macroeconomic policy has had mixed effects on forest biodiversity status. The increasing liberalization of national economies and the stimulation of private sector investment in economic activities provide a much-needed opportunity for investment in biodiversity management and utilization as well as decreasing the subsidies and price controls that have made conservation-based land uses and enterprises unprofitable in financial terms. However, the management of biodiversity resources and areas has undoubtedly been weakened by ongoing cuts in public expenditure and staffing.
Agricultural and land policy continues to provide significant perverse incentives that encourage forest biodiversity loss, while presenting few positive economic incentives for biodiversity conservation in the context of agricultural land use. Of concern is the continued implicit protection of the agricultural sector so as to encourage the expansion of crop production, frequently at the cost of forest biodiversity.
The absence or poor enforcement of any strict penalties or economic disincentives against unsustainable land-use practices exacerbates these trends in rural areas.
Forest and wildlife policies, despite improved efficiency and revenue collection by the public, still lead to deficits and shortages of staff and equipment. Although the policies allow opportunities for private and community economic gain and participation in biological resource management and utilization, few successful cases of this actually exist. Forestry and wildlife sectors still face a chronic lack of funding.

The major economic issues in forest biodiversity conservation between the two countries are the different ways that policies and laws relating to specific resources or activities are implemented. Examples include the differences in land tenure and property rights regimes among cross-border communities, differences in prohibitions against natural resource utilization, and the types and levels of community benefit-sharing arrangements employed by wildlife and forest authorities in the three countries. The underlying economic causes of biodiversity degradation and loss at the site level include the following:

The lack of harmony among specific instruments of national policy that encourage or prevent particular economic activities, and indeed lead to conflict among countries. Examples include the Bukoba and Rakai districts needing to harmonize policies on timber exploitation.
Continuing promotion of economic activities that are destructive to biodiversity in sectoral policies. This issue is manifested at the project sites through the lack of an effective land use policy, and the continuing promotion of agricultural expansion and forest clearance. This is particularly severe in districts that are subject to the expansion of rain-fed and irrigated arable crops such as Bukoba-Rakai.
Weak tangible and effective economic instruments with which to encourage local biodiversity conservation and discourage biodiversity degradation. In all of the cross-border sites, there are few enforced economic penalties against biodiversity degradation, and few opportunities for local communities to generate tangible economic benefits from sustainable biodiversity utilization and management.
Insufficient funds for biodiversity conservation. At both cross-border sites, the agencies concerned with biodiversity conservation lack funds, and owing to poor revenue generation, collection and allocation structures. Their on-the-ground presence and activities are accordingly constrained.