Measuring Perceptions in Tanzania: Local Level Impacts of Mining

Oxford Policy Management’s strong reputation for executing wide scale household surveys in sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia is increasingly being applied to OPM’s extractive industries work, where policy discussions surrounding natural resource exploitation all too often take place using very ‘macro’ indicators for success – such as exploring how governments can secure the largest segment possible of tax revenues. OPM recently saw an opportunity to merge these two areas of expertise to start asking and answering pressing questions about micro-level effects of the extractive industries.

As someone specifically interested in researching the relationship between natural resource management and conflict, I find the approach an exciting and promising new path forward for investigating the socio-economic effects of extractives, a process that can benefit all parties involved. I spoke with one of the designers of a recent World Bank project in Tanzania that took this macro-micro approach, in large part guided by the Mining Partnerships for Development Toolkit. He explained the project’s significance succinctly; ‘this study gives a voice to the people at the bottom of an inverted pyramid who aren’t normally heard.’ The inverted pyramid referred to is an illustration of the oft-cited disconnect between extractive industries’ contribution to strong national-level performance and the far less positive local level impacts.

The purpose of the Tanzania study was to provide substantive evidence about the social and economic benefits received by a selection of communities (and the wider economy) in the mining regions of Shinyanga and Mwanza from investments in mining and, concurrently, how effectively these benefits are managed by communities, the companies and national/local governments. The methodology was explicitly designed to elicit the perceptions of the communities about the impact of large-scale mining, including the impact on local social and economic development.

The research team used focus group discussions and scorecards, to find that, for each of the mines, an overall majority of community respondents have negative perceptions of the benefits from mining. Beyond general perceptions of the inadequacy of benefits, the study was able to hone in on vulnerable groups within communities. For example, the research identified that in some cases, women’s interactions and experiences with mining differed from their male counterparts. In some regions, these effects ranged from less access to direct job opportunities to higher instances of violence and male domination.

Of course, it isn’t possible to summarize a sizeable and deeply researched report in just a few paragraphs. Rather, I wanted to highlight the importance of nuanced and innovative research methods. Research like this is a great tool for us in the policy business looking to provide advice that more accurately portrays the reality on the ground. We should consider countries not just as monolithic entities, but rather as complex webs of networks, with different stakeholders at every level – where local government capacities (or lack thereof) are often more critical for enhancing development outcomes for mining than poorly enforced central government policies. I look forward to seeing how this approach can be more broadly adopted in research moving forward. I know I will be trying to adopt some of these techniques in my own work.