Baseline Survey Report

Social Learning for Adaptive Tourism Management

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

October 2009

Tourism for Future Generations BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 2

CONTENTS

1. Introducing the project ...... 2 2. Executive summary ...... 3 3. Background ...... 4 4. Methodology ...... 4 5. Findings… ...... 5 5.1 Village land use management ...... 5 5.2 Natural resource management and conservation ...... 6 5.3 Employment and livelihood diversification ...... 7 5.4 Local governance and accountability ...... 8 5.5 Tourism development and management...... 10 6. Conclusion and recommendations ...... 11 7. About the partners ...... 12

1. INTRODUCING THE PROJECT

The aim of this project is to develop innovative approaches to community involvement in tourism planning that communities and responsible tourism businesses across Tanzania can all benefit from. The project is co-ordinated by the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF), and implemented by a team consisting of representatives from TNRF, Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (UCRT), Honey- guide Foundation and Tasconsult. Funding is provided by the IUCN’s Ecosystem Grants Programme and Sand County Foundation’s Bradley Fund for the Environment. The project will run from April 2009 to March 2010. The geographical area is Ngorongoro District in the villages of Piyaya, Engaresero, Pinyinyi and Arash. These villages are involved because of existing, or high potential for tourism activities in the area. There are already established relationships between these villages and Honeyguide and UCRT. Goal of the project

Better planned tourism to directly improve local livelihoods and rangeland ecosystem management through ethical business partnerships with rural communities.

Objectives x To produce participatory adaptive management plans for tourism in four villages in the Lake Natron and Loliondo areas of Ngorongoro District. x To produce a toolkit of best practices derived from the workshop and the project’s accumulated experience for use in other private investor-community initiatives involving tourism. Introducing the baseline survey

The baseline surveys which were carried out in May and June 2009 were designed to serve several purposes. The questions aimed to elicit information forming a basis for evaluation at the end of the project period and beyond. In addition, the surveys aimed to capture information which would enable the project team to understand the needs and requirements of the various stakeholders and provide information to direct the project towards achieving the objectives. The information also pro- vides valuable inputs in the workshops, and can be useful to the various stakeholders.

Photos credits (except for page 9 and back cover): Gian Schachenman 2009 ADAPTIVE TOURISM MANAGEMENT 3

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The scope of the baseline survey was 4 project charged by the district authorities, threaten village areas, Pinyinyi, Engaresero, Arash and the competitiveness of the tourism product. Piyaya. All of the villages have existing tourism The household survey revealed repeated re- enterprises that have been in operation within quests from the various members of all the vil- the villages for a number of years, with the ex- lages for more transparency in contracts, reve- ception of Pinyinyi. Each of these companies is nues and donations made to the village. Vil- experienced in tourism ventures and also oper- lagers feel they lack information about con- ate in other areas of Tanzania. tracts with the tourism enterprises, affecting The household survey confirmed that the local their ability to question the village leadership. community was well aware of the natural re- For example, one village indicated there were sources present on village land, however ef- no contracts with any tourism enterprises. How- forts to conserve these resources are not pro- ever, a current contract was later provided to active and do not incorporate the village the survey team by an operator. Hence, little members sufficiently. For example, Lake Na- was known of the various tourism develop- tron is the largest body of water in the project ment initiatives existing in the village, nor of the area and the lake is to be proposed as a Ram- total value of donations being invested in vil- sar site, but there was no indication that the lage development through tourism enterprises. village government or members of the village The tourism companies and the village govern- were aware of this development, nor was it ments did not have the same understanding clear what it meant to them. of the contract obligations, as further evi- Wildlife is managed centrally by the Wildlife denced by the frequent breaches of contrac- Division (WD). However, due to little support tual agreements by both parties. Formal com- from the WD or district authorities, the village munication between the tour operators and authorities have taken the initiative to manage the village government varied significantly. Ad conflicts between wildlife and humans. One hoc communication was the norm, and only example of participation between the village one village conducted regular meetings. Writ- and the tourism companies exists where they ten guidelines for responsible tourism were ei- jointly established a conservation scheme that ther not available or the copies provided by involved the contribution of funds to compen- the tour operators and the villages differed. sate village members for loss of livestock due Also, there were no mechanisms for evaluating to predators. the performance of such guidelines or bylaws. Piyaya, Arash and Engaresero villages have The contribution of the tourism enterprises to committees that are responsible for the envi- employment and livelihood diversification is ronment and tourism activities. The baseline hindered for two main reasons. First, communi- study examined household awareness of such ties live in arid areas and are geographically bodies and their roles. It was clear in all villages separated from the main offices of the tourism that the structures governing natural resources enterprises, making negotiations and market- and tourism were not known among the gen- ing of cultural attractions difficult. Second, eral populace. All village governments re- many of the local people have little educa- quested training and support to improve gov- tion, and therefore employed in the less de- ernance and tourism management. Although manding jobs within the tourism enterprises. the village leadership and members are The inadequate employment and little proac- aware of the natural resources and basic tour- tive action to develop this sector have signifi- ism attractions of their villages, they lack the cant impacts on the mindset of the local com- knowledge of tourism as a business. The village munity and the likelihood for tourism to directly governments also lack the opportunity to iden- improve the households’ economy. tify the particular products that would provide the basis to strategically broker lasting deals and to manage the development of tourism. ______The fee structure for tourism products differed from village to village. It was not entirely clear * Ramsar is the name of an international how the fees were realized. It was noted that convention for the sustainable protection of important wetland resources for water birds. It is fees being charged by other administrations named after a town in Iran. such as the WD and gate entrance fees BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 4

3. BACKGROUND 4. METHODOLOGY

The four villages that participated in the A questionnaire was developed based on baseline study are all within Ngorongoro Dis- the project indicators, and was modified for trict. Arash and Piyaya are neighbouring vil- three different groups of respondents: village lages and have very similar tourism products. government officials, households, and tour Engaresero and Pinyinyi villages also operators. The survey was conducted by a neighbour each other but only Engaresero small team from UCRT and Honeyguide Foun- has a substantial tourism product. Pinyinyi vil- dation in the project villages of Piyaya, Arash, lage has a small commitment from a tour op- Pinyinyi, and Engaresero. erator. The populations of Piyaya, Arash, and Village government survey: The baseline Engaresero average to 4,600 people, while team conducted semi structured interviews Pinyinyi village has a larger population of with two village leaders in each village, 6,392. which took one full day per location. They All villages have support from non- also collected key documents and records governmental organizations, including Ox- from the village leaders to verify information. fam, Ereto Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project Household level survey: The objective of the and Ujamaa Community Resource Trust household survey was to collect information (UCRT) — largely providing capacity devel- and get the community’s general perception opment. Only Piyaya and Arash villages re- of the tour operations within the village. ceived development aid, such as school Members from 20 households were inter- sponsorship and solar panels from the tour viewed within each village area — the aim operators with whom they have contracts. being to have a cross section of the commu- In general, the tour operations within the vil- nity. The interviewers targeted four respon- lages all offer camping, walking, cultural ex- dents per village from each of the following periences, and photographic and hunting categories: safaris. x Those employed by a tourism company (e.g. watchman, walking guide or cook) x Those not employed but receiving benefits from tourism (e.g. independent walking tour guides, bead jeweller or shop owner) x Those having no engagement with tourism (e.g. those living far away) x Those who live near tourism but do not directly receive benefits, their boma (homestead) is near a camp or the road but they do not sell or are not employed by tourism x Ad hoc interviewees with community members In addition, interview respondents came from different bomas or areas, were a mix of ages with a balanced between men and women, in order to ensure a diverse perspective. Tour operator survey: The questionnaire was circulated to nine tour operators by email, and six responded. The tour operators se- lected all invest in the baseline villages. All the operators for Arash and Pinyinyi responded, the most active tour operators in Piyaya responded, and one operator in En- garesero responded. ADAPTIVE TOURISM MANAGEMENT 5

5. FINDINGS

The completed questionnaires were summarised for comparison between the villages and ana- lysed in order to draw some conclusions concerning the area’s tourism activities. The findings are grouped based on the respondents’ knowledge, understanding and perceptions of: x village land use management x natural resource management x employment and livelihood diversification x local governance and accountability x tourism development and management If any information is incorrect, the authors apologise but stress that this is information they have recorded in good faith. The surveys are available for reference by contacting [email protected].

5.1 VILLAGE LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Land allocated for tourism: The village land these authorities and the village seems to be area measures available were estimates and poor, and there are no recorded visits from varied substantially between villages. Engare- the WD to the four villages. Tanzania National sero is the smallest with 1,045 km2 , followed Parks borders Arash village and supports the by Arash with 1,950 km2 and Piyaya with 2,700 village, without meeting with the village au- km2. Much of Piyaya is within the Ngorongoro thorities. According to the survey, the WD Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) and and NCAA have made no contributions to Pinyinyi’s records were not available. the village development. The villagers see this lack of contributions as the cause of conflicts On average village governments estimated that between 20 to 35 percent of villages over who owns and has rights to the land, land is used for tourism. Roughly, Piyaya has particularly in relation to the Wildlife Act. the most land made available to tourism (810 Also, the village leaders were very aware of km2), although this figure can be misleading if the nature of conflict between hunting and the area given includes the NCAA and is thus photographic tourism and the competition not available for village revenue collection. over wildlife resources. Feeling threatened, Arash follows with 682 km2 and then Engare- the village government acknowledged a sero with 209 km2. need to resolve the conflict. However, few Land use plans: Of the four villages, only En- strategies were yet in place. garesero has a land use plan and a certifi- Conflicts over land and resources: The cate of ownership. Arash has a land use plan respondents mentioned few conflicts over but it is not registered as they have a conflict land use and management. Pinyinyi indi- over the boundary with Malambo village. cated a conflict between the village leader- Negotiations are well under way between ship and members over a water catchment the two village governments. Piyaya has a area. Engaresero had a similar conflict over plan in draft and also have to resolve a con- deforestation. Arash indicated that they had flict over village boundaries with Malambo, no conflict due to the village land use plan negotiations are in the final stages between even though the plan had not been officially the two parties using the village government registered. All villages stated that they had as well as using the council of elders. Without no conflicts over land use for tourism activi- a plan Pinyinyi competes with Oldonyo ties. Sambu over land. Land governance: The village activities and land are governed by the village government. However, there are other administrative bodies that also govern resources within the village land. The NCAA and the WD have authority over land, natural resources and wildlife. However, the relationship between BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 6

5.2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION

The natural resources within the villages are aware of any conservation campaign and managed to an extent by the village govern- where 20 percent of interviewees were ment, but other external administrative bod- clearly aware that there was none. ies have specific responsibilities such as the WD in regards to the wildlife, Ramsar conven- Water and wetlands tions for wetlands, and Lake Natron. The Lake Natron is the largest body of water in baseline survey investigated the attitudes the project area, and has been proposed as and understanding of the village govern- a Ramsar site. However, having not had a ment and village members regarding the visit from the Wildlife Division (WD) to inform natural resource management within the vil- the village about the Ramsar process, there lage lands, given that these lands are an in- was no indication that the village govern- tegral component of tourism attractions. ment or members were aware of this devel- Village by-laws governing natural resources opment and what it would mean to them. Ideally, the Ramsar process should be ad- Three villages, Engaresero, Arash and Piyaya, dressed to avoid conflicts and misunder- have bylaws to govern natural resources. standings regarding the proposed status However, all the bylaws are waiting for the change of the lake. The baseline study re- district’s approval prior to implementation. corded that Pinyinyi residents had some con- Pinyinyi did not have bylaws. No copies of flicts over the management of certain water any of the village bylaws were made avail- catchment areas and had proceeded with able for the baseline survey. Therefore, the disciplinary action for those members who contents of these by-laws have not been violated the Village Council order to con- scrutinized. serve the area. Of all Pinyinyi residents, 55 percent attended meetings to discuss water Community awareness and participation catchment areas. However, conflicts con- tinue to arise. The household survey confirmed that the Forestry general members were quite aware of the natural resources within the village. Also, it No forestry conflicts were recorded in the confirmed that through meetings such as the baseline study except in Engaresero where village Annual General Meeting village lead- the village leadership uses the village bylaws ership informs members about the conserva- to protect the acacia forest within the vil- tion issues affecting the village. lage. A total 70 percent of the Engaresero households had attended meetings to dis- Despite the flow of information the village cuss this issue. leadership are not proactive in natural re- Wildlife source conservation and do not involve the village members sufficiently. The specific con- Wildlife in Tanzania is managed by the WD. cerns varied between villages depending on However, the village authorities have taken the unique tourism environment and the gov- the initiative to manage conflicts between ernment efforts to inform and gain support wildlife and humans due to minimal support from the village members. Arash village did from the WD or district authorities. not report any conservation initiative taking In Piyaya and Arash the Maasai moran place, as reflected in the household survey (warriors) hunt lion either as a means to dem- where 80 percent of interviewees were not onstrate courage or to retaliate when livestock are killed by lion. Arash had held meetings to raise awareness on lion conservation. However, the household survey indicated that only 40 percent of the village residents attended such meetings. Lion hunting is seen as an ongoing problem for the tourism companies who value enormously the presence of lions as part of their product. In Arash ele- phants destroy the crops and occasionally kill people. Although the village has reported ADAPTIVE TOURISM MANAGEMENT 7

the issue to the WD and District Council, there compensation fund, whereby both parties has been little response. Wildebeest are seen contribute funds to compensate village as a threat to cattle primarily in Piyaya and members who have lost stock to the dogs. Arash, as they transfer disease to cattle and This initiative has proven successful as the compete over pasture and water. However, wild dogs have remained in the general area the village felt there was nothing they could over time. However, records of how much do about this threat. In Engaresero, baboons had actually been contributed were not were responsible for hunting goat kids. Again, made public. Respondents of the household the conflict was reported to the district au- survey (55 percent) knew of the fund and thorities with no response. had attended meetings to discuss the conservation efforts. In Piyaya, wild dog sightings have recently been more frequent and have added a ma- Grasslands jor attraction for tourists. However, the dogs In the land use plan for Arash and Engare- have been hunting livestock frequently and, sero, areas allocated for grazing were clearly thus, endangering their own existence by indicated. Piyaya and Pinyinyi have no land provoking retaliation from the Masaai live- use plans, but they use the traditional agree- stock keepers. The village in partnership with ments of land allocation and grazing. the tour companies established a wild dog

5.3 EMPLOYMENT AND LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION

Very little attention has been paid to liveli- basis (December to April). The village has a hood diversification or employment of the cultural boma which contributes its proceeds local communities within tour company op- from tourists to support underprivileged erations. In all four villages only minimal staff women and provide them the opportunity to are from the local community and very few sell beadwork. Also, the tour operators occa- supplies are purchased locally. Employment sionally purchase from Piyaya’s shops. of the local community is mainly seasonal, Engaresero village has more business flows part time, and made up of men. The study through purchases at its shops, amounting to found only one example of a female em- over 10 million Tanzanian Shillings between ployee. No training opportunities were made 2006 and 2009. Engaresero also hosts a available to the local community other than women’s beadwork project that is adminis- ‘on-the-job’ training. tered by the village government. One tour Most of the small and medium enterprises operator employed seven people on a full (SMEs) that are engaged with the tour com- time basis, and two people on a part time panies are either existing shops selling goods basis, provided training on the job, and also required occasionally or small cultural busi- focused on guide skills development. At the nesses supporting women. However, the time of compiling the baseline analysis, one SMEs do not extend outside of these two ar- major operator in the area had not yet re- eas into products such as meat, milk, vegeta- sponded. ble, poultry or egg production to supply tour Pinyinyi village unfortunately does not have operations. tourism and, thus, no economic benefits can The tourism companies in Arash village em- be recorded. ploy up to 27 village members only on a part- time basis, all of whom are men. Training is provided informally. Arash village also has a proactive initiative whereby a tourism company contributes US$4 per client to a fund for women. The companies in Piyaya village employ a total of 22 full time local staff, three of whom are based in Arusha town. A total of 15 addi- tional people are employed on a seasonal BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 8

5.4 LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The baseline study investigated the account- Arash ability and diligence of village government In Arash all the revenues from tourism were to establish structures within the village to posted on the public notice board. However, manage tourism and natural resources. 55 percent of respondents knew of the reve- Community awareness of local governance nues but said the government was not transparent. Another 15 percent knew of the reve- Piyaya, Arash and Engaresero villages have nues only through the Village General Assem- committees responsible for the environment bly and the notice board, and 15 percent and tourism activities. The baseline study ex- did not know of any revenue whatsoever. amined household awareness of such committees by inquiring whether the interviewee Also apparent was a lack of general under- was aware of the committee’s existence, its standing about the role of the village govern- role, and members. ment roles, with 15 percent of the households surveyed indicating that they did know of the Household awareness varied from village to governance structure nor of the natural re- village. It was clear in all villages that the source committee. About 70 percent did not general populace was not aware of the gov- know anything about the governance struc- ernance structures, roles and responsibilities ture nor its members, and with 15 percent not for NR and tourism management. All village knowing that a specific committee was re- governments requested assistance from the sponsible for tourism and natural resources. survey team to improve governance, mainly through training and support in the following Ironically, the Arash village government pub- areas: licized all committee member names on a notice board in the village office along with x Administrative and financial controls and procedures the roles and responsibilities of the committee. Apparently, the availability of informa- x Environmental management tion for the public is not sufficient for ensuring x Legal assistance especially for contract widespread awareness of governance sys- negotiation and development tems. Community awareness of tourism gover- Piyaya nance on village land When conducting the household survey, 10 Each village government indicated that the percent of households knew of a natural Village General Assembly was the only way committee, and 90 percent indicated that to inform the village members about the they did not know much of any governance revenues earned from tourism, and that no structure in the village, except for the main other informational mechanisms are yet in leaders like the chairman and the village sec- place. retary. However, these respondents were not Not surprisingly, the household survey re- aware of a village natural resource commit- vealed little awareness among members of tee. the village about revenues from tourism. Another 55 percent of the households stated Transparency of contracts between villages that the government was not transparent and tour operators was also generally low, regarding village revenue, 20 percent did not with few members of the village aware of the know of any tourism revenues specifically. details of the contracts and negotiations with Those who did know of revenues (25 percent) tourism enterprises. had received the information through the Annual General Meeting and notice board. Engaresero In Engaresero village 25 percent of the households surveyed did not know of any governance structure whatsoever, 45 percent knew of a natural resource committee, 10 percent indicated they knew of a special ADAPTIVE TOURISM MANAGEMENT 9

tourism committee, and 20 percent did not Little was known of the both the nature and believe that there was a committee dedi- value of the philanthropic initiatives by tour- cated to natural resource management. ism enterprises existing in the village for local development: Another 60 percent of the households surveyed indicated that the village government x The Arash household survey indicated was not transparent with revenues, 5 percent that 10 percent of the village residents knew of no tourism revenues and 35 percent participated during the meeting where indicated that they know of tourism revenue tourism and contracts were discussed. through the AGM. The two operators in Enga- 20 percent of the surveyed members resero were not aware of the contract the had previous contact with or had met village had with a hunting company. the tour operator, 25 percent were aware of donations from tourism Pinyinyi enterprises, while 55 percent did not In Pinyinyi village, the village leadership in- know of any donations and 20 percent formed the survey team that no tourism was indicated that there were no donations. taking place within their village. However, the x In Piyaya, the household survey survey team were then informed by the Tan- indicated 30 percent participation zania Wildlife Company (TAWICO), one of during the meeting where tourism and the tour operators, of a contract and small- contracts were discussed, and 60 scale tourism activities taking place in Piny- percent of the surveyed members had inyi. Of the households surveyed, 90 percent met the tour operators. Another 45 were sure that no tourism was taking place, percent were aware of donations from and, hence, that no revenue was being tourism enterprises and how the earned. The other 10 percent of households resources were used. claimed they did not know if revenue was being earned or not. x Engaresero had 30 percent participation during any meeting where tourism was Apart from the revenues, 55 percent of discussed but no contracts have been households indicated they were not aware tabled for discussion. Of the surveyed of the village’s governance structure. members, 45 percent had met the tour Tourism revenues to the villages operators and 90 percent were not aware of any donations from tourism Tourism revenues earned by villages through enterprises. According to an agreement contracts, cultural tourism and donations with a tour operator, the village had to from tour operators for village development provide receipts for revenue paid to the and livelihood improvement are crucial to village. However, over the past 3.5 years the success of tourism for future generations. of partnership, the tourism enterprise had The accountability and transparency of the not received any receipts. systems for revenue management must facilitate full community participation and support x Pinyinyi village has few tourism activites. for village bylaws and other regulating struc- Only one contract exisits with a hunting tures designed to preserve the tourism re- tour company that seldomly uses the sources, such as wildlife habitat . area. None of the surveyed members were not aware of this contract or any If the community does not see economic donations or support from the company. advantages from the tourism, they will not fully support business contracts between the village government and the tourism investors. During the household survey, repeated sug- gestions arose from various residents of all the villages demanding more transparency of revenue collection made to each village. These demands are mainly a result of the lack of information about the contracts between the village governments and the tourism enterprises. Without adequate information village residents have a weak foundation of knowledge for basing critiques of the village leadership and revenue management. BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 10

5.5 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

The baseline survey investigated the mecha- Fee structure nisms in place allowing the village government to manage the contracts and activities The fee structure differed from village to village relevant to the tourism enterprises operating for the various tourism products. It was not en- within the villages. tirely clear how the fees were realized. Also, fees administered by other authorities, such as All the villages except for Pinyinyi had more the Wildlife Division and district councils (for than one contractual agreement with tour gate entrance fees) threaten the competitive- companies, some of these contracts have ness of the tourism product. been in operation for over 10 years while oth- ers are more recent. Piyaya and Engaresero Communication, roles and responsibilities have three contracts each and Arash has two contracts. The baseline survey observed a lack of opportunity for formal communication between the Comprehension of contractual agreements tourism operators and the village government. Piyaya tour operators have three meetings per All tourism investors surveyed have current year with the village government, although op- contracts in the sampled villages. According erators in other areas have ad hoc meeting to the village leadership, these contracts ad- arrangements. However, in Piyaya and Arash dress a broad range of issues such as gender the tour operators employ a village liaison offi- equality, cultural activities, environmental cer to facilitate communication. and socio-economic impacts. However, the tourism enterprises surveyed differed in opin- Also, the roles and responsibilities of the tourism ion, stating that in fact these issues were not operators and the village government, were in the contract (except for a contract in not clear, as was apparent by the lack of un- Arash). This gap indicated that the tourism derstanding about guidelines and regulations companies and the village government did for responsible tourism practices. Either guide- not have the same understanding of the obli- lines were not available or the guidelines avail- gations and contents of the contracts, as fur- able were different according to the tour op- ther illustrated by the recurring breaches of erator and the village government. Obviously, contractual engagement by both sides. there also were no mechanisms for evaluating the performance of such guidelines or by-laws. Understanding of tourism product The study recorded only one example of direct Each village features different tourist attrac- village management of a tourism product. In tions with varying standards. However, the Engaresero the village government tried to col- baseline survey indicated that village mem- lect fees from tourists via guides who trek up bers and leadership were not conversant Mount Lengai. However, they failed to collect with the differences between various destina- the fees. tions and products, and therefore would have difficulty both managing the conditions for such products and brokering any compli- cated contracts in a strategic way. ADAPTIVE TOURISM MANAGEMENT 11

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Responsible tourism can be an economic the revenues derived from tourism. tool used for the conservation of natural re- x Research into mechanisms for the village sources. A key ingredient to the sustainability leadership to disseminate information to of resources on community land is the ability the community will provide a secure envi- of the revenues to contribute to the wellbe- ronment for long term commitment from ing of the communities. In this process the the community who will appreciate and, community that benefits will value these thus, conserve natural resources. natural resources and gain motivation to protect and conserve them for future genera- x Improving the capacity for the leadership tions. to negotiate the processes for developing and closing a contract using a participa- Establishing land use plans: The baseline sur- tory approach, to develop their capacity vey indicated that most of the villages did to improve and market their product will not have land use plans, the tool that en- enable the leadership to feel confident in ables the village to manage the resources the decision making process, removing the and allocate land in a transparent and par- anxiety of their business and partnerships. ticipatory manner. The local community needs to understand It will be necessary for all the villages to cre- that tourism is a business they have already ate land use plans in order to guide the pre- invested in. sent and future leaders to responsible land management. Preferably, these land use Responsible tourism on community land that plans should indicate the land accessible to depends on locally available natural re- tourism enterprises. sources has become increasingly recognized under a new term, “geotourism”. The geot- Improving communication: As the govern- ourism approach to socially and environmen- ance of natural resources within the villages tally ethical tour operations takes into ac- includes other administrative actors such as count the interdependence of natural re- the Wildlife Division, Ngorongoro Conserva- source conservation, community livelihood tion Area Authority and Tanzania National development and tourism businesses. Parks, it would be advisable to improve the communication between the multiple stake- For example, small and medium enterprises holders to build a cohesive approach to can increase the provision of cost-effective natural resource conservation. produce and services to the resident tourist camps; tour operators can employ more lo- Additionally, the village by-laws should be cal residents within the camps enabling circulated to all stakeholders to provide an benefits from tourism to directly improve the opportunity to comply. Any further develop- livelihoods of local households; tour opera- ment of bylaws, guidelines and regulations tors, residents, and governing authorities can should be created in a participatory manner increase their coordination and communica- to ensure consent from all stakeholders. Joint tion to conserve natural resources. conservation initiatives have been successful in one village, providing opportunities to Given the limitations of current initiatives for strengthen awareness and commitment to community-based tourism in Tanzania as de- the natural resource preservation and fortify scribed in this report, further research into op- partnerships. Further research on the oppor- portunities for the local community to benefit tunities for similar initiatives should be consid- economically in an ethical and sustainable ered. manner is required. Local capacity development: For the largest For the sustainability of tourism in the four sur- stakeholder group – the residents of Arash, veyed villages, future projects and studies Engaresero, Pinyinyi, and Piyaya villages – the that build on this baseline survey may be in- baseline study indicates a range of recom- clined to support increased local participa- mendations for improving participation and tion, specifically, by planning land use, shar- capacity: ing information sharing on tourism management structures, developing small business, x The local communities need training and and building the general management ca- support to improve good governance and pacity of local leadership. management of the natural resources and ABOUT THE PARTNERS

Honeyguide Foundation was initiated after the need was identified for an institution to bridge the gap between the communities and the tourism industry in order for both parties to benefit from tourism economically and therefore to have a long term vested interest in the management of their natural resources. The organization supports communities and environmental conservation in Tanza- nia, making use of tourism as a sustainable source of income.

Ujamaa Community Resource Trust aims at strengthening the capacity of local ethnic minorities in northern Tanzania to better control manage and benefit from their lands and natural resources. UCRT’s ultimate goal is to improve community and household level welfare through improved land and natural resource management. This project will build on the work of UCRT who will play an important role in the implementation of the project outcomes.

TasConsult is a relatively new locally owned consultancy company, providing services to local authorities, local and international NGOs. Its focus is ‘capacity building for development’ and its services include strategic planning, programme evaluations, multi stakeholder processes. The company also includes expertise in preventive health care and financial services and has links with addi- tional advisors and service providers.

The Tanzania Natural Resource Forum is a growing network of over 2,000 individual members and civil society organizations that works to improve natural resource governance for sustainable livelihoods, through information sharing, policy advocacy and the support of best practices in natural resource management. At the heart of TNRF’s work as a change agent are these topical areas of focus: Forestry, Wildlife, Pastoralism and Livelihoods and Community-based Tourism.