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 en- able 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