CONCLUSIONS

Our examination of the law and practice on environmental impact assessment in Tanzania can be broadly summed up as follows. Firstly, it is clear that EIA law is still relatively new and evolving. It is very much a legal phenomenon of the 1990s as the first statute to make mandatory provisions for EIA was enacted in 1994. Secondly, the evolution of this law is proceeding on sectoral and ad hoc manner rather than being comprehensive and multisectoral. There is no framework EIA legislation or other statute which makes provisions for EIA procedures or guidelines to cover all sectors and a broad range of activities which are normally subject of EIA studies¹. Indeed there are only sectors - mining and marine resources in Marine Parks and Reserves - that have EIA provisions in their statutes. The rest are outside this legislative scheme and whatever EIA scrutiny of activities thereat has been undertaken gratuitously.

Thirdly, given the uneven development of the EIA law, practice has been equally uneven and inconsistent. EIA studies have been undertaken in sectors or on activities in which there are no legal requirements, as in the case of the Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project and in the National Parks; while it has not been undertaken in other areas even where there were legal requirements as in the case of the Bwejuu Island when AFC had planned to build a hatchery for its prawn farms in the Rufiji Delta. It is fair to say, therefore, that whether or not an EIA study is undertaken has depended not on the legal requirements, rather it has depended on other dynamics such as requirements of project financing. Many multilateral and bilateral financial institutions now require EIAs as part of conditionalities for project funding.

The result of the above is that EIAs - where they are undertaken - are carried out without good faith. They are not seen as genuine processes to examine the impacts of projects and their mitigation as well as examining various alternatives but as a time wasting hindrance to development and a drain on project resources. That is why in the case studies examined herein the EIA processes did not seem to make impact on the approval of the relevant projects.

Fourthly, in the context of the economic crisis that countries such as Tanzania are going through and in the context of the liberalization policies adopted ostensibly to deal with that crisis, the exploitation of natural resources is intensified by opening up key natural resource sectors of the economy to foreign capital in the form of foreign direct investment. This opening up leads directly to the intensification of conflicts over the access to and control of natural resources between rural communities on the one hand, and the state and big foreign capital on the other; as well as increased pressure on the natural resources which threatens ecological balance of key ecosystems.

Fifthly, as a result of the convergence of interests between actors within the state and its agencies and foreign investors, issues of legality and socio-economic and ecological sustainability of foreign investment projects are easily sacrificed in the altar of short term corporate profit and personal gain. Not accustomed to being bound by the law, high officials in the government are hardly ever concerned with issues of legality even though they are aware that they were breaking the law. Nor are they overly worried about the consequences of their decisions in terms of social and environmental impacts of the projects they approve for implementation. This is symptomatic of a larger political problem of the accountability of public officials and institutions which requires concerted political action.

Lastly, our examination also underscores the importance of access to information by the public, local communities and activist organizations. Access to information is one of the most important tenets of a democratic society. Secrecy deprives people of the power to decide. Without information, the public is powerless to act. With information, the public can act to make sure that illegal conduct ceases, that victims are fairly compensated, that problems are appropriately resolved, and that future injuries are prevented. Secrecy also undermines the proper functioning of government. Democracy shrivels without substantially free access to information. If government officials are kept in the dark, they are unable to perform their duty. When people do not know the facts, they cannot put pressure on government to pass laws necessary to promote the general welfare or to enforce existing laws.

The case studies presented herein provide ample testimony. In the case of the Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project, it was relatively easy for the public to intervene in the debate on the viability of the project because considerable amount of information was made available to the public. As a result, the level of public participation in the debate on the project was very high. NGOs, local communities and the general public both in and out of the country were able to intervene at crucial moments and considerable pressure was brought to bear on the investor and the Government. The EIA processes were fairly open, involving - for the first time - a public hearing in which various issues in respect of the project were debated with the active participation of the Delta communities.

It was through these fairly open EIA processes that considerable amount of information was generated which enabled the Rufiji people and social and environmental activists to challenge the viability of the project and its supposed benefits, both in the courts as well as in the arena of public debate. The above is all the more significant as there were no legal requirements for EIA in respect of the project area². Which tells us that the state, which has exhibited such undisguised disdain for legality and the rule of law, can still be made accountable through sustained and organized popular pressure. In this respect, independent organizations of the people acting in unison with social and environmental activists and organizations may be the only way forward in protecting environmental and natural resources against irresponsible exploitation for short term gain of the corporate interests and their state backers.

Another important lesson arising out of this analysis relates to the exercise of ministerial or presidential discretion. That the Cabinet approved the project in the face of massive scientific evidence and public opinion against its implementation shows once again the dangers of conferring wide discretionary powers without any significant controls or checks. That top officials in the Ministry of Tourism "pressured" the conservation agencies to issue permits for construction of tourist facilities irrespective of environmental consequences is also symptomatic of this problem.

The Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project also reveals the dangers of unquestioning faith in "scientific objectivity". The prawn project has shown quite clearly that, unfortunately, sciences can also be bought and compromised. This is particularly so in the context of liberalization policies which have exacerbated a crisis of our universities and research institutions through deep cuts in funding. Academics and scientists are thus forced to rely more and more on consultancies in order to survive in the face of the economic crisis. In this environment, it is very tempting for intellectuals to "toe the line" by writing investor-friendly "scientific" reports in order to assure future consultancies even if it means sacrificing the interests of the majority of the people by helping push through dubious projects such as the one under examination.

In this respect, it is mistaken to regard issues of social and ecological sustainability as just technical issues to be left for the scientists, bureaucrats and politicians to decide. They are also fundamental political issues in which the working people have a stake and their participation may be the only way they defend their interests and livelihoods. In this sense, it is equally important to subject scientific reports and analyses of projects to rigorous and critical scrutiny to ensure that whatever their conclusions are, they are based on objectively verifiable facts and evidence.

1. NEMC's Procedures and Guidelines do not qualify as such since they have never been adopted by the Minister responsible for environmental matters as subsidiary legislation and are, therefore, not enforceable.
2. Ironically, no EIA was conducted at Bwejuu Island which is part of the Mafia Island Marine Park contrary to the requirements of the Marine Parks and Reserves Act, 1994, while it was conducted elsewhere in the project area without legal basis but due to public pressure.