Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The term 'region' no longer functions to denote a strictly geographical or spatial reference (Söderbaum, 2003). Owing to the radical shift in the conception of regions, their role in promoting local development has likewise changed drastically over time. Nowadays regions are conceived as multi-dimensional networks that emerge through partnerships between states and non-state actors, linking together local and foreign individuals and companies, powerful and powerless individuals and their communities. Rather than existing as bounded spatial expanses per se, regions in this expanded sense are fluid, continually constructed and deconstructed by the practices of these different partners and therefore their parameters are in perpetual flux. This paper explores how the practices of nature conservation and the promotion of nature-based tourism have contributed to the creation of new regions in this sense. The paper applies the case of Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and their constructions as cross-border regions of significance for promoting tourism. The paper draws some insights from studies that have examined transfrontier tourism to demonstrate how different actors have acquired political support and legitimacy for promoting cross-border tourism but that on-the-ground experiences have not matched the claims that tourism promotes local development. The main argument of the paper is that regional-wide conservation initiatives through which cross-border tourism is promoted by different partners have had spatial implications that are largely associated with various kinds of local livelihood (in) securities.

Abstract
The process through which state sovereignty over natural resources is gained and lost serves as a precondition for other external actors to acquire rights and to appropriate wealth. These external institutions are multinational firms and non-governmental organizations that do not rely on sovereign entities. By building on the concept of graduated sovereignty, the example of Tanzania's mineral resource demonstrates how ownership rights shift, creating different impacts on the ground. Analysis of historical and contemporary changes in Tanzania's mineral laws serves as a basis for revealing the ways in which sovereignty is differentiated or graduated within a national territory, given current global relations. Since neither global resource governance nor market conditions are static or predictable, the government of Tanzania responds differently to external forces over time. Tanzania's most recent national decisions follow the model of neoliberal flexibility and maximisation of profit from natural resources. Consequently, more complex issues of local resource rights have remained unattended over the years of policy and legal reform, resulting in discriminatory treatment and marginalization of different groups in Tanzanian society.

Prosperity in Rural Africa? addresses questions related to tracking economic development in poor rural areas in the face of scarce data. The chapters collect insights and experience into the dynamics of rural societies in Tanzania, demonstrating that economic data can render development in these regions invisible.

AbstractThe changing shape of sustainability governance has been a key academic and policy concern in the past two decades, as part of a wider debate on the interactions between public and private authority in governing the economy, society, and the environment. In this article, we contribute to these debates by examining how these interactions operate locally and across jurisdictions in three conservation and development initiatives in Tanzania and what impact they have on the functional quality of sustainability governance. We find that clear division of responsibilities, coupled with material incentives for communities and equal and transparent distribution of benefits, are key positive contributors to functional quality. These factors underpin the complementary interactions (collaborative at the local level; institutional layering across jurisdictions) that are needed to successfully negotiate and implement the compromises needed to balance conservation and development goals. We also find that competitive dynamics are harmful to functional quality, especially those taking the form of local institutional duplication and of dominance by central government across jurisdictions. These tend to appear especially when sustainability initiatives involve multiple stakeholders with wide discrepancies in resources, interests, and power, which leads to compromises determined in a top‐down manner.

AbstractMeasures of poverty based on consumption suggest that recent economic growth in many African countries has not been inclusive, particularly in rural areas. We argue that measures of poverty using assets may provide a different picture. We present data based on recent re-surveys of Tanzanian households first visited in the early 1990s. These demonstrate a marked increase in prosperity from high levels of poverty. It does not, however, follow that these improvements derive from GDP growth. We consider the implications of this research for further explorations of the relationship between economic growth and agricultural policy in rural areas.

The rhetoric of a 'win-win-win' situation – which represents simultaneous achievement of economic growth, environmental protection and social development – is central to the emergence of community-based wildlife protection efforts that involve new partnerships between actors such as local communities, businesses and government agencies. The win-win rhetoric furthers the logic that the more partners, the more wins – yet the current knowledge base lacks clear criteria for evaluating partnerships. This working paper uses political ecology as a conceptual lens to propose such criteria. We suggest examining partnerships not only based on their complexity, but also how they are formed and gain legitimacy in different contexts and how various partnership configurations engender particular kinds of ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Based on a review of the literature about partnerships and their impacts, and drawing on insights from Tanzania's wildlife sector, we establish three groups of literature that emphasize the benefits of partnerships: one focusing on landscape conservation, another on governance reforms and the last on tourism related businesses. In these three groups of literature, partnerships are claimed to improve the effectiveness of biodiversity governance by securing land, facilitating local developments and by creating business links. Building on critiques from political ecology we conclude by questioning this win-win-win rhetoric arguing that partnerships only lead to wins for specific actors thereby indirectly aggravating local power struggles. They do so by supporting rent seeking and the rise of local elites while simultaneously concealing the marginalization of other actors and thereby effectively contributing to the continued loss of local land rights. ; The rhetoric of a 'win-win-win' situation – which represents simultaneous achievement of economic growth, environmental protection and social development – is central to the emergence of community-based wildlife protection efforts that involve new partnerships between actors such as local communities, businesses and government agencies. The win-win rhetoric furthers the logic that the more partners, the more wins – yet the current knowledge base lacks clear criteria for evaluating partnerships. This working paper uses political ecology as a conceptual lens to propose such criteria. We suggest examining partnerships not only based on their complexity, but also how they are formed and gain legitimacy in different contexts and how various partnership configurations engender particular kinds of ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Based on a review of the literature about partnerships and their impacts, and drawing on insights from Tanzania's wildlife sector, we establish three groups of literature that emphasize the benefits of partnerships: one focusing on landscape conservation, another on governance reforms and the last on tourism related businesses. In these three groups of literature, partnerships are claimed to improve the effectiveness of biodiversity governance by securing land, facilitating local developments and by creating business links. Building on critiques from political ecology we conclude by questioning this win-win-win rhetoric arguing that partnerships only lead to wins for specific actors thereby indirectly aggravating local power struggles. They do so by supporting rent seeking and the rise of local elites while simultaneously concealing the marginalization of other actors and thereby effectively contributing to the continued loss of local land rights.

New and more complex partnerships are emerging to address the sustainability of natural resource use in developing countries. These partnerships variously link donors, governments, community-based organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), business, certification agencies and other intermediaries. High expectations and many resources have been invested in these initiatives. Yet, we still do not know whether more sophisticated organizational structures, more stakeholders involved, and more advanced participatory processes have delivered better sustainability outcomes, and if so, in what sectors and under what circumstances. To fill this knowledge gap and build capacity in this area, the NEPSUS research and capacity building project assembles a multidisciplinary team to analyze sustainability partnerships in three key natural resource sectors in Tanzania: forestry, wildlife and coastal resources. In each of these sectors, we assess whether co-management with local communities and private and civil society actors, and putatively more participatory processes in the governance of renewable resources, result in more equitable and sustainable livelihoods and environmental outcomes. We compare 'more complex' partnerships to relatively 'simpler', more traditional top-down and centralized management systems, and to instances where sustainability partnerships are not in place. This working paper tackles the main conceptual, methodological and research design issues arising in this effort.