Skip to main content
Tanzania's Implementation of the Africa Mining Vision Cluster Five (Mineral Sector Governance)

Tanzania's Implementation of the Africa Mining Vision Cluster Five (Mineral Sector Governance)

Africa Mining Vision (AMV) has nine (9) clusters covering issues such as revenues, artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), geology, human resources and institutions, mineral sector governance, and environmental issues. Cluster five (5) is one of the nine (9) clusters that focus on mineral sector governance.

Cluster five (5) focuses on key issues such as a well-governed mining sector that is inclusive and appreciated by communities and other stakeholders, human rights, public participation in legislative processes, transparency and access to information and institutional oversight by the legislature to mention a few.

In 2021 Policy Forum examined cluster five (5) main goal including how it is being domesticated and what are the impacts on the country. The analysis probed how the activities and outcomes as outlined in the AMV action plan have been implemented and achieved in the country as well as identifying advocacy gaps and recommendations that can help in attaining full domestication of the AMV cluster 5.

The findings from the analysis show that Tanzania has not developed a Country Mining Vision (CMV) to domesticate the AMV and provide a context-specific roadmap for the implementation of the AMV Action Plan.

Some information on the mining sector especially on revenue receipts from mining companies is publicly accessible. However, contract and beneficial ownership information disclosure remain a nightmare. Further, even the disclosure of information on revenues is not that much accessible to all because it is only those that are proficient in English and have access to the internet that can access it.

No specific policies, laws, and regulations on public participation in mineral sector legislative processes have been developed in Tanzania. The existing laws, policies, and regulations only provide for public participation in local content, CSR, primary mining licenses, and equity participation. These, however, do not entail participation in legislative processes.

Although the 2017 laws provide for parliamentary oversight of the mineral sector, especially regarding the renegotiation of contract terms, in practice this has not been the case.

Community and other stakeholder participation in policy-making processes and mining projects remain wanting. Community participation is only limited to CSR; there have not been efforts to streamline national policymaking with community participation. Broader stakeholder participation in the same takes place within constrained time limits because the practice has been that mineral sector laws are made under a certificate of urgency. This does not provide ample space for stakeholders to participate in policymaking.

The Protocol of Free Prior Informed Consent with respect to communities affected by mining activities has not been fully domesticated. There are some provisions in the Mining Act 2010 (CAP 123 R.E. 2019) in favour of FPIC but these have not been followed with clear regulations to guide their implementation.

With respect to CSR policy coherence, the existing policy and legislative framework are coherent. What is stated in the 2009 mining policy is further strengthened in the Mining Act 2010 (CAP 123 R.E. 2019).

The capacity of local governments, communities, CSOs, and mining companies to make informed decisions on mining projects remains challenging. Even though local governments have been provided space to determine CSR, there is limited emphasis on building their capacity to negotiate with mining companies on CSR. Some CSOs have come to the rescue but this remains a limited effort. Communities on the other hand have not been empowered to negotiate and make informed decisions. CSOs have done some advocacy on this but their coverage remains limited.

Guidelines for the equitable distribution and utilisation of portions of the mineral wealth have not been developed. Revenues streaming from mining go directly to central government coffers and it is not clear how these are managed and utilised. It would be wise to have in place a mechanism for mineral wealth distribution and utilisation that is inclusive and considers intergeneration equity issues akin that of the oil and gas revenue management.

Tanzania has ratified human rights conventions and instruments relevant to the mineral sector in its broader legal system. However, these have not fully been domesticated in the mining sector. There are some human rights provisions in the mining sector’s legal framework, but these are not strengthened with an implementation strategy such as regulations.

Public human rights institutions exist but these have not been empowered with human and financial resources to monitor the enforcement of human rights standards with respect to mining. The Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance, a key human rights promotion institution, faces financial constraints. It did work on mining human rights issues in the past but with financial constraints, it has not been doing much of recent.

Other human rights organisations such as CSOs have, with funding support from international agencies and institutions, kept a strong monitoring eye on the human rights record of mining companies. They also conduct advocacy around human rights issues.

Methodologies and tools for mainstreaming health and human rights issues into impact assessment procedures and policy planning frameworks have not been developed. Impact assessments in the mining sector and other sectors continue to focus on economic, social, cultural, and environmental issues. Health and human rights have not yet been mainstreamed.

Based on the findings, the analysis recommended the following:

Tanzania should consider developing a National Mining Vision to domesticate the AMV and provide a roadmap for the implementation of Cluster five (5).

Tanzania needs to further strengthen transparency and access to information beyond the publication of revenue reconciliation reports. It also has to invest more in access to information using a variety of formats and in language that is accessible to the majority of Tanzanians.

Since the beneficial ownership regulations have been published, the government should now move to swift implementation of beneficial ownership disclosure especially regarding the register of company beneficial owners.

Tanzania should strengthen its commitment to community, public and stakeholder participation in mineral sector decision-making and governance processes. It should adhere to the AMV Action Plan by legislating for public participation.

Tanzania needs to strengthen mineral sector oversight by building the capacity of institutions and empowering oversight organs such as the parliament. This can be done by increasing financial resource allocation to parliament to enable its standing committee to perform its oversight function adequately. Ensuring that the oversight institutions are independent of government and political manipulation is also an important capacity-building strategy.

Tanzania should consider developing a revenue sharing and distribution mechanism to ensure that mineral revenues are shared between the national government and local governments/communities where mining takes place.

Tanzania should develop guidelines for companies to comply with human rights standards, empower public institutions for oversight and enforcement of human rights and mainstream human rights and health in impact assessments.