PART VI: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS TO DECENTRALIZE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES

6.1 Existing Interfaces and Linkages between Local Government Structures

The current local government structure does not provide adequate autonomy to local governments. They are unable to make important decisions independently because many legal provisions make the local government dependent on the Central Government. Indeed, according to Ngware and Haule (1993.5), in order for local governments to be successful in sustainable grassroots social development, they must have the unfettered power to serve the local people rather than act as agents for the central state.

Ngware and Haule also argue that limited autonomy and authority of local governments is evidenced by hiring and disciplining mechanisms for local government personnel. Apart from the so-called "casual labourer", local authorities lack the power to discipline or dismiss nor unruly personnel. All these powers are vested in the Local Government Service Commission, which is the appointing and disciplinary authority. This organ, as Ngware and Haule argue, is not connected to the local authorities, because the local authorities "employees" are subject to the control of the district/municipal/city directors who are appointed by the President. These directors wield a lot of clout because of their decision making powers and control of financial matters.

As a matter of fact, the division of responsibilities between, the district, divisional, ward and village in relation to decision making and particularly in environmental management, is not well stipulated in the current decentralization process. For example, the district council is the highest level of analysis and village level as the lowest level within the district, we can not see clearly the position of division and ward in the decision making process. Villages are directly responsible to the district councils without necessarily passing through the wards.

Again, in practice, most of the district councils rely more on villages than wards and/or divisions in day to day functions of the local administration. However, it is important that these two structures, namely, wards and divisions are integrated into environmental management due to the following reasons.

• Most district councils cover large areas and some of the villages are difficult to reach;
• Due to poor infrastructure, communication between most districts and villages is costly and inefficient; and
• Wards can act as a bridge between district councils and villages due to the fact that each ward has a councilor who can represent the interest of his/her constituency in the district council meeting.

In an ideal situation, it is assumed that elected members of the local government make decisions while local bureaucrats implement those decisions. However, this is not the case . According to Kessy (1999:76), the decision making process in local authorities is mainly done by local bureaucrats (Council officers in collaboration with District and Regional Commissioners) and not the elected members (councilors) as one would expect. It was found by Kessy in his research of two district councils (Moshi and Lushoto) that, most of the decision making process, from agenda setting to the implementation stage, is mainly controlled by local bureaucrats. This phenomenon, according to the study, is attributed to the central government's reluctance in emphasizing high quality councilor-ship. Instead, the outdated provision of someone who can read and write is the criteria used to elect a councilor. The level of interaction between councilors and council officers in the decision making process is minimal. Despite the council officers typically being better educated, more experienced and having an expertise in environmental matters as compared to the low educated councilors who are sometimes more vocal in small policy decision issues.